Chariots

[Malthus]

I don't think those are frescos.   More like reliefs.

The first one is a fresco ...

You sure about that?  I think it's a reconstruction of a damaged relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ramesseum_siege_of_Dapur.jpg

I have no idea. All the description says is "Ramesses II's victory over the Cheta people and the Siege of Dapur. Made after a mural in Ramesses II's temple in Tebes".

[Razgovory]

If Malthus can be wrong about frescoes, how can we trust him the chariots?

[Capetan Mihali]

If Malthus can be wrong about frescoes, how can we trust him the chariots?

"Malthus hasn't lost much cred; he lost all that he had, but he didn't lose much."

[Malthus]

If Malthus can be wrong about frescoes, how can we trust him the chariots?

"Malthus hasn't lost much cred; he lost all that he had, but he didn't lose much."

Grumbler has a new account? 

[PDH]

All I know, from my study of film, is that the British apparantly used burning horse-drawn wheeled vehicles as late as the early 20th century

[The Minsky Moment]

No, it is merely noting that a set of facts (common usage over a very wide geographic area) supports two theories (1: common origin; 2: that in areas where direct evidence is not available, similar useage is a reasonable supposition). 

Except that the only fact that is being used to support these theories is the presence of similar physical artifacts in different locations at different times.  That is a very slender reed to support the weight of these theories.  It's speculative.

They could be - the two weapons are not exclusive. Moreover, the debate is about use as "battle taxis" versus use as weapons in and of themselves.

. . . It is a question of the accumulation of evidence.  . . . At some point, the weight of the evidence tips the scales. Sure, one could imagine some scenario in which all of these multiple sources were mistaken, but with each additional source that becomes increasingly unlikely.

Yes, we cannot be absolutely certain, but we can be pretty sure. If one had to give odds, I'd put my money on it ...

Oh I agree with all that.  Given the amount of evidence of issuance of archery equipment and the corroboration of the iconography, I would agree that mobile archery platform theory is -- at least for the time period we are talking about -- not only plausible, but the most convincing of the competing explanations.  I am just inserting some caution about the strength of the conclusion.  At the end of the day, we can't really know for sure, and the next major find could completely upend what we thought we knew.

[The Minsky Moment]

If Malthus can be wrong about frescoes, how can we trust him the chariots?

Let's ask Guller.  He's the vehicle expert.   

[Malthus]

Except that the only fact that is being used to support these theories is the presence of similar physical artifacts in different locations at different times.  That is a very slender reed to support the weight of these theories.  It's speculative.

Certainly, I haven't actually reviewed the Chinese evidence. Though there is more to it than that.

There is also the circumstantial evidece as to the military impact of various technologies. We know that the steppe later produced light cavalry of a similar pattern over some thousands of years, and we know that such light cavalry tactics - a mobile archery platform (in later ages, the horse alone) often proved very, very effective against more static armies.

Therefore, it is reasonably plausible, or plausibly reasonable, to project what we know backwards in time - to when people rode chariots rather than horses.

Naturally such projection alone isn't very convincing. But when added to that we have iconographic evidence, and physical evidence (what little that exists), and linguistic evidence (for example, of the spread of indo-european languages), a case can be made that the development of this military technology - mobile archery platforms in their first incarnation as chariots - had a big impact on the old world.

Oh I agree with all that.  Given the amount of evidence of issuance of archery equipment and the corroboration of the iconography, I would agree that mobile archery platform theory is -- at least for the time period we are talking about -- not only plausible, but the most convincing of the competing explanations.  I am just inserting some caution about the strength of the conclusion.  At the end of the day, we can't really know for sure, and the next major find could completely upend what we thought we knew.

Fair enough. My own caution was that we can't take the Iliad at face value as a source on such specifics, where it is contradicted by the weight of *contemporary* evidence as to how these things were actually used.

The Iliad is an interesting study in the relevance of written and oral evidence - it has gone from being considered as solid history in antiquity, to being considered nothing more than mythology in the 19th century, to be considered more or less as history again following Schleman's (sp?) discovery of Troy and similar discoveries of Mycenaen import, to today - where I think a more nuanced view is emerging: it is a highly mythologized account referencing, but not necessarily literally, events happening in an actual existing civilization.

Sort of similar to certain bits of the OT, really, such as whether an actual "King David" existed. The twist is that the poets composing the Iliad existed at a lower level of social organization than the people they were writing about, while the reverse was the case for those writing the OT - thus the actors in the Iliad appear more "barbaric" than their real-life counterparts probably were, while the actors in the OT appear *less* "barbaric" than they probably were - for example, the alleged civilized glories and splendors of Solomonic Israel. 

[Queequeg]

Sort of similar to certain bits of the OT, really, such as whether an actual "King David" existed. The twist is that the poets composing the Iliad existed at a lower level of social organization than the people they were writing about, while the reverse was the case for those writing the OT - thus the actors in the Iliad appear more "barbaric" than their real-life counterparts probably were, while the actors in the OT appear *less* "barbaric" than they probably were - for example, the alleged civilized glories and splendors of Solomonic Israel.

So basically this.

I also think you are not necessarily being fair arguing that Dark Age Greece, particularly around the time of Homer, would be so much less civilized than the world of The Iliad.  The alphabet was developing around this time, iron was being used a lot more, the chariot was being abandoned in favor of cavalry, Greece was increasingly integrated in to a revived Mediterranean civilization, etc...

[The Minsky Moment]

I also think you are not necessarily being fair arguing that Dark Age Greece, particularly around the time of Homer, would be so much less civilized than the world of The Iliad.  The alphabet was developing around this time, iron was being used a lot more, the chariot was being abandoned in favor of cavalry, Greece was increasingly integrated in to a revived Mediterranean civilization, etc...

The level of material culture and trade activity does seem to haven been significantly reduced.

The "Dark Ages" metaphor seems appropriate here in that it is analagous to the later Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Empire.  In both cases, a sophisticated literate, bureaucratic polity engaging in extensive long-range trade and accumulating luxury goods for a stratified elite collapses and is replaced by localized units with a more simplified political and economic structure.  In both cases, technology - narrowly defined in terms of physical artifacts - does not really regress and in fact augments in some areas, but in the broader sense of the ability to apply technology through organization, human capital and accumulated technical "know how" there is significant regress.  But I agree there is a tendency to admire the more sophisticated polities more than may be deserved.  The Later Roman Empire and Late Mycenae may have had impressive bureaucracies, but life for most ordinary peasants was probably not very pleasant.

[Razgovory]

If Malthus can be wrong about frescoes, how can we trust him the chariots?

Let's ask Guller.  He's the vehicle expert.   

Well, Malthus was a pottery guy once upon a time and what are frescoes but giant flat wall mounted pots?

[Malthus]

Sort of similar to certain bits of the OT, really, such as whether an actual "King David" existed. The twist is that the poets composing the Iliad existed at a lower level of social organization than the people they were writing about, while the reverse was the case for those writing the OT - thus the actors in the Iliad appear more "barbaric" than their real-life counterparts probably were, while the actors in the OT appear *less* "barbaric" than they probably were - for example, the alleged civilized glories and splendors of Solomonic Israel.

So basically this.

I also think you are not necessarily being fair arguing that Dark Age Greece, particularly around the time of Homer, would be so much less civilized than the world of The Iliad.  The alphabet was developing around this time, iron was being used a lot more, the chariot was being abandoned in favor of cavalry, Greece was increasingly integrated in to a revived Mediterranean civilization, etc...

I'm using the term "barbaric" in scare quotes deliberately. Certainly, "dark ages" (more scare quotes) Greece had a lower level of social organization, of a type that later ages would describe as more "barbaric". I make no judgments on the relative worth of highly organized, bureaucratic kingdoms versus perhaps more egalitarian chiefdomships/kingdoms.

The Greek 'dark ages' is remarkable for being one of the few occasions that I know of where an entire system of writing fell completely out of use, and was not replaced for centuries (and when it was, it was by another completely different type of writing).

In particular, for the purposes of this thread, organized, stratified societies tend on average to *fight* differently than more "barbarian", less stratified societies do - and this difference, I would contend, is fully displayed by the account of fighting in the Iliad. 

[The Brain]

I want a biga wheeled chariot.

[Queequeg]

I also think you are not necessarily being fair arguing that Dark Age Greece, particularly around the time of Homer, would be so much less civilized than the world of The Iliad.  The alphabet was developing around this time, iron was being used a lot more, the chariot was being abandoned in favor of cavalry, Greece was increasingly integrated in to a revived Mediterranean civilization, etc...

The level of material culture and trade activity does seem to haven been significantly reduced.

The "Dark Ages" metaphor seems appropriate here in that it is analagous to the later Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Empire.  In both cases, a sophisticated literate, bureaucratic polity engaging in extensive long-range trade and accumulating luxury goods for a stratified elite collapses and is replaced by localized units with a more simplified political and economic structure.  In both cases, technology - narrowly defined in terms of physical artifacts - does not really regress and in fact augments in some areas, but in the broader sense of the ability to apply technology through organization, human capital and accumulated technical "know how" there is significant regress.  But I agree there is a tendency to admire the more sophisticated polities more than may be deserved.  The Later Roman Empire and Late Mycenae may have had impressive bureaucracies, but life for most ordinary peasants was probably not very pleasant.

I don't think either the Hittites or the Myceneans even represent civilization in the way we think of it.  Almost all wealth and knowledge is concentrated around palaces or temples.  The vast majority of the population lives a far more marginal existence than the 'primitive' farmers in less hierarchical societies.    The written language was phenomenally difficult in part because mass literacy would have been dangerous.  I think the "Dark Age" invention of the phonetic, vowel-inclusive Greek Alphabet was one of the great moments in all of civilization.  It's a very innovative period in some respects, particularly as it progresses towards the early Classical period. 

Otherwise agree. 

[Queequeg]

The Greek 'dark ages' is remarkable for being one of the few occasions that I know of where an entire system of writing fell completely out of use, and was not replaced for centuries (and when it was, it was by another completely different type of writing).

Cuneiform would basically die out at some point during the Sassanids. Hieroglyphs. 

In particular, for the purposes of this thread, organized, stratified societies tend on average to *fight* differently than more "barbarian", less stratified societies do - and this difference, I would contend, is fully displayed by the account of fighting in the Iliad.

Where do the Mongols fit in to this?  The "sea peoples?"  Just because the Chatti fought naked with clubs doesn't mean that all "barbarian" groups did.