So why did battle chariots pulled by horses stop being a thing/ never became a thing in other areas in favor of just riding horses(cavalry)? Was it due to geography of most open fields (say in places in Greece and Italy)compared to large stretches of flat land in Egypt and surrounding areas?
>>557998
After the development of the stirrup chariots were obsoleted.
Celtic chariots were operated on rolling terrain.
Terrain doesn't matter because fields of battle tend to be picked and limited in archaic war, continuous front warfare was developed in the 19th century.
>>557998
Chariots initially were the only way you could use horses as transport
Because they used to be fuck tiny and very skittish about cunts on top of em.
People from Central Asia/Eurasian STeppes then figured out how to ride them by breeding bigger breeds and breaking them in by making them used to the idea that a cunt on top of em isnt gonna kill them.
Probably lack of suitable terrain mostly. Does anyone whether a chariot or a rider could cover the same distance quicker?
Weak question if you just wanted a chariot thread.
They did not have suspensions, therefore every little bump would be jarring, therefore can't ride on flat ground.
They need 2-4 horses instead of one horse.
They need somebody dedicated ti driving the chariot instead of fighting.
Its harder to ride close to an enemy and stab them in a chariot, so they would have to rely on javelins and arrows most of the time.
>>557998
Chariots were last used by Antiochus III against Romans and by the Celts, also against Romans. By that time however, they were woefully outdated and epitomized the inability of Rome's enemies to cope with the changes in military technology and tactics.
Chariot's golden era ended together with the bronze age.
>>558008
>They did not have suspensions
Most of them were slung floor suspended on whippy spars.
>>558005
Cont. Despite this, some civies still used Chariots for various purposes. Greco-Romans used them ceremonially.
In Ancient China and Assyria, Chariots continued to be used in battle despite mounted cavalry due to battle doctrine. Both China and Assyria built hugeass Chariots that can carry 4-5 men. Besides being combat platforms, they served as proto APCs by being able to carry two infantrymen. So you now have a very mobile infantry force that if you had 500 Chariots, it meant a mobile infantry force of 1000 men.
That said, China abandoned it for mounted cavalry sometime in the Han Dynasty with the invention of the stirrup. But they served as crossbow platforms until they were phased out in the 100's BC.
>>558019
Yyyeah, wrong picture.
Anyway, during the warring states China, Qin Shih Huangdi was notable for his disdain of Chariots, as he descended from border nobility of the Zhou that fought Indo-Iranian horse nomads.
That said, the Han Dynasty after his revived its use as a crossbow platform. It even made an armored version that was like a moving pilbox for fighting in the steppes
>>558001
When you say picked, you mean they would selectively choose where the were designated to duke it out with all enemies?
>>558024
>kind of weird
>combination of many reason rather than just one main reason
This is an extremely common misconception.
>>558001
I don't like the implication that people just dropped chariots because they accumulated enough beakers to unlock Tech 5: Stirrups one day.
According to wikipedia, paired stirrups weren't even invented until less than 2000 years ago. And cavalry had been around long before then.
Greek horseman, 550 BC, no stirrups.
>>557998
"chariot Trap" formations in phalanxes saw men create detented shapes in their ranks. Horses WILL NOT charge 14ft long pikes come to find out, and Phalanx's could be trained to make the 'chariot trap' shape to envolope them as they passed closely to, then through the ranks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythed_chariot
>Horses WILL NOT charge 14ft long pikes
I hate this meme. There are lots of examples of horses charging pikes.
>>558060
>Yes, but unstirruped cavalry is equivalent to 2 man chariots in terms of military usefulness.
...So you're saying it's exactly as useful, but you don't have to build shit?
That's a phenomenal improvement.
>>558071
Different horses, different training regimes, different uses in battle.
If you've only really got neolithic ponies, you build the celtic chariot.
If you've got Doric steppe horses you run unstirruped cavalry.
>>558011
Antiochus used chariots? By god, even Alexander knew they were outdated.
>>558071
You really have no idea what you're talking about, fyi.
>>558066
>early modern warfare
>classic greek warfare
Exactly the same horses, training and deployment too eh? Because the aristoi of greece had massive state horse breeding farms, training regimes and standing armies?
>>557998
new breeds of horses
>>557998
Chariots were harder to pull back from enemy's formation than horse.
If you didn't trample them, you were dead.
>>558060
>Yes, but unstirruped cavalry is equivalent to 2 man chariots in terms of military usefulness.
I'd challenge that. Robin Lane Fox, an accomplished rider himself, writes in his book on Alexander the Great that riding without a stirrup is a disadvantage but not a decisive disadvantage. If the rider is skilled enough, he can still accomplish almost as much as a man riding with stirrups.
>>558075
He did, at Magnesia. They performed just as one might expect - horribly.
>>558097
Yes and a skilled and motivated marine can from two hundred and fifty feet away, shooting at a moving target, get off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot!
This isn't how you equip 17 year old aristoi or dominant gens in the tribe to once every season or two go next door and fuck some people's shit up.
>>558116
I've just realised that this is one of those threads where OP has done no reading and is pig fucking ignorant.
I'm out. Somebody recommend the cunt an Osprey.
>>558079
We know that horses charged pikes in the medieval and early modern period. Any actual evidence that they did not in earlier periods?
>>558060
"Shock" is another military history meme I hate. But anyway. There's a lot of doubt surrounding the theory that stirrups are necessary for lancers to charge.
>>558087
Most chariots were using bows or javelins, not trying to trample. Chariots tend to be very light.
>>558079
>>558001
Chariots stopped seeing use LONG before stirrups were invented.
Please don't comment on subject you have no knowledge of.
>>557998
Horses got big enough to carry a man in battle unaided.
It's really that simple. Better investment of resources, and it's MUCH more agile. They're also able to actually survive close combat, unlike chariots.
>>558060
>MUH STIRRUPS
Except the actions of shock cavalry form long the stirrup contradict you. As does modern attempts by jousters.
The fucking stirrup isn't what keeps you mounted, a high backed saddle is. That and your thighs.
>>558079
There's examples of horses engaging pikes and spears for as long at the two things coexisted in battle.
>>558112
Could you stop being a fucking retard?
Thanks.
There's experiments showing you can do it.
There's.... the entire, long, long history of heavy cavalry in the steppes, asia minor, and the west using long thrusting lances or even full on pikes, on horseback, at speed, to charge people.
It contradicts you.
Literally every bit of cavalry history and tradition, from the assyrians, to the hellenes and parthians, to the fucking gauls and romans in the west, says you're wrong.
to say nothing of Alexander, who's decisive arm was shock cavalry with lances, and who rode with fucking SADDLE BLANKETS.
This shit is all clearly documented.
You'd know this if you did any actual research at all on the subject.
Have you even fucking looked at a damn stirrup?
>>558112
also
>two hundred anf fifty feet
Given that they qualify at twice that range, he'd better be able to hit a moving target at it.
If not, my civilian ass wants his fucking rifle, because I can make those shits, and i'm a terrible rifleman.
Did you post a thread purely so you could make comments despite having no knowledge about anything?
If so, /b/ is the second door from the left.
If not, stop fucking trying to argue. Ask for a source and go read, or don't post. Otherwise you're wasting every bodies time, including your own.
>>558142
A+ post
>>558142
>There's experiments showing you can do it.
Yes and the Olympic high jump record exists.
>>558172
Reeanctors are not olympians. They're usually pretty fat and stupid.
If a reenactor says something couldn't be done because he can't do it, you can ignore him.
If a reenactor can actually manage to do something competently, then a historical person could probably do just as well or better.
>>558172
There's literally millennia worth of cavalrymen who disagree with you. Full stop. If you'd like to prove to me that the companions were not, in fact, shock cavalry, feel free.
You'd also have to explained pike armed Assyrians (on armored horses) as not being shock cavalry.
Steppe cataphracts with lances as... not being shock forces.
Hellenics and romans alike with kontos-literally barge pole-lances as not being shock cavalry.
Roman equites, who got in duels with other horsemen and charged them with lances-as did their allies-to try and run them through, armor and all, as somehow... not using shock attacks,
Do I also need to mention the gauls, who mounted a mass cavalry attack on casear?
Men who came ot be valued as cavalry auxiliaries? Men who tried to kill the cataphracts at carrhae with their... shit, lances?
Or how about thessaly?
A people who's national sport was-I shit you not-jumping off a running horse onto a bull and wrestling it.
A place where the nobles COMPETED to be best at riding in formation, and the men who the companion cavalry were directly inspired by. Men who, again, big shock-were known to charge people down as lancers.
Go ahead.
Prove that none of these groups-not one-made shock attacks on horse back.
Because if EVEN ONE DOES, you're wrong. Full stop.
Oh, and post stirrups?
We have byzantine manuals, written regarding the change of their cavalry to fighting in the avar style.
They'd fielded heavy lancers for centuries. cataphracts. The idea is older than the roman village, much less Constantinople. The biggest change is that the "light" cavalry, rather than javelins, are now armored horse archers who also fight with lances in the charge, with swords, and receive training as infantry.
They don't comment on a revolution in shock tactics, despite being avid users of cavalry, and the rules being riders, with "run a deer down on horsebakc and throw a mace at it's head" being a common method of sport hunting for the nobility.
>>558191
>If a reenactor can actually manage to do something competently, then a historical person could probably do just as well or better.
You're not getting it. I hope to god you're a lance corporal or lower. You'll never get it.
>>558202
I enjoy how you're conflating the existence of masses of greek or celt aristoi with them being trained to push heavy infantry.
>>558087
>Chariots were harder to pull back from enemy's formation than horse.
Most Chariots in history existed as missile platforms & battle taxis.
Charging a formation with chariots for most of the time is idiocy. The only time a chariot engaged in Melee was to run down fleeing enemies.
Friendly reminder that the entire feudal system in Europe was based on the invention of the stirrup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
>>558283
I like how you don't understand that you don't need to directly assault heavy infantry to be shock infantry-
and that of the examples I just gave you, almost all of them are known to have done exactly that, regardless.
But again, feel free to provide EVIDENCE that NONE of them were shock cavalry, and that none made shock attacks.
Ever.
Because your idiotic idea that you need stirrups to do so short of olympic level traiing falls apart if you can't.
>>558291
Except it isn't. Hence the term controversy.
White was a fucking moron. You don't get to just dismiss information that demolishes your ideas.
>>558295
>Except it isn't.
You can't be serious. It is absolutely indisputable.
>>557998
>So why did battle chariots pulled by horses stop being a thing/ never became a thing in other areas in favor of just riding horses(cavalry)?
Math.
To get one chariot archer, you need the following (at a minimum):
- An archer
- A driver
- A chariot
- Two horses
To get one horse archer, you need the following:
- An archer
- A horse
In the West (that is, not China and India, b/c I don't know as much about them), chariots were for the most part only advantageous as long as horses were inadequate (largely because of size/strength) to carry a single armed/armored rider. As soon as the breeding of horses reached a point where they could carry a warrior by themselves, chariots began to lose out to cavalry. The chariot was an expensive combat system, affordable only by an elite; horse archers were a comparative steal, and steppe societies in particular could field massive numbers of them. This is not even to get into all the other advantages cavalry have over chariots, like mobility, maintenance, durability, and so on.
>>558340
But doesn't (driver+archer+chariot)/2 weigh more than one rider+horse? Even an armed rider.
>>558295
>that you don't need to directly assault heavy infantry to be shock infantry
We were talking about shock cavalry, not shock infantry.
>you don't need to directly assault
Stirrups allowed that. And look, hey, I agree, the indirect uses of cavalry have always been more important, but you get a bunch of rich young men who think charging things is good on horses and guess what those rich young men want to do?
>>558340
And 16 years of training.
The reason the chariot became no longer useable was because in the ending of the bronze age, the Chariot didn't stand a chance against mixed groups of large assembled infantry whom could tear the chariots to pieces.
If you charged 20 chariots against 40 horsemen, the chariots would lose.
Mass infantry attack could also stop and destroy them. Horses are faster and more maneuverable allowing them to pull back in time or retreat.
>>558309
No, the feudal system was slowly developed by the degeneration of roman society combined with the reforms of diocletian.
The successor kingdoms adopted these and mixed them with their german tribalistic ideas on society which would create the basic version of what would become feudalism in the 500's or 600's and continue on to about 900~ 1000~
>>558129
Shock as a factor does exist
>>558450
>the Chariot didn't stand a chance against mixed groups of large assembled infantry whom could tear the chariots to pieces.
This is NOTHING to do with metal culture and everything to do with social organisation and agriculture.
>>558401
>But doesn't (driver+archer+chariot)/2 weigh more than one rider+horse? Even an armed rider.
Maybe so, but since the primary role of the chariot in the west was as an archery platform (and sometimes a battle taxi), weight was not a big positive. In fact, it was arguably a negative, because a wheeled machine with multiple horses and riders is much easier to get stuck in bad terrain than a single horse and rider.
The bottom line is that, as a combat system intended to give horse-like mobility to a soldier wielding a bow, the chariot is inefficient and inferior compared to a (cavalry-trained) horse.
>>558466
>This is NOTHING to do with metal culture and everything to do with social organisation and agriculture.
I was mentioning the time period in which social organization and agriculture was changing enough to allow for foot armies to overcome the chariot based ones which was premarily during the bronze-iron dark age.
>>557998
>Was it due to geography of most open fields (say in places in Greece and Italy)compared to large stretches of flat land in Egypt and surrounding areas?
yes. what the hell you think you're going to do with thing like that in carpathian mountains or germanic forests?
>>558488
Given that that "dark" age involved post-PIE speakers who loved chariots, its weird.
>>558112
>Yes and a skilled and motivated marine can from two hundred and fifty feet away, shooting at a moving target, get off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot!
We're discussing professional soldiers here. You're not an accomplished rider, nor am I. So I take the word of one over you, especially when his word deals with this exact topic.
Shock cavalry existed before stirrups.
>>558508
>Shock cavalry existed before stirrups.
This is not true. That is why when stirrups were invented it caused the formation of feudal society because to created a calls of mounted knights who could afford stirrups.
>>558817
>That is why when stirrups were invented it caused the formation of feudal society because to created a calls of mounted knights who could afford stirrups.
That is fucking retarded. The Feudal Society emerged out of 1) Late Roman Socio-Economic system and 2) Barbarian Germans continuing that system in addition with protectionism and feudal obligations
That said, it took a whole lot of fucking time for Knights to be even a thing: a special, privileged social class. Probably by around the High Middle Ages.
Under the Germanic Kingdoms, and particularly in the Frankish Empire, a mounted cavalryman had the same status and privilege as a professional infantryman. Both cunts received land grants from their lords to keep em off from day-labor and focus on fighting. Naturally, the only difference between the two is that cavalrymen are richer as they can 1) afford a horse and 2) afford to keep/outfit themselves as cavalrymen. Hence his landholdings is usually bigger than that of a Foot "Miles" who prolly just had a patch of farm for himself.
The social importance of the Cavalryman arose late in Frankish Europe. One such particular situation which increased their standing was during the Magyar Raids by in which their job became highly important.
>>558888
Yes, I read that, it's stupid. What waste of quads.
>>558450
>Shock as a factor does exist
Yeah, I don't know what the other Anon was rambling about.
shitposting about memes and shock, not realizing how much the morale, and the abillity to wage psychological-warfare is relevant on the field of battle.
>>558508
>We're discussing professional soldiers here.
No. We're not. We're discussing Greek and Celtish aristoi.
>>559027
>the abillity to wage psychological-warfare is relevant on the field of battle.
Tactically this is normally called "morale" not psychological warfare.
Modern "psy-war" has pretty shitty results.
>>559081
well the battles have changed a fair bit in modern times. I think that the lead up to the battle would have terrified me, watching the all the guys you have to kill come slowly marching towards you with drums chants, ect. All the men in the army felt this with you so mass changes in morale would spread and panic would set in leading to a rout. I cant really think of a modern situation where this sort of stuff could happen.
>>557998
Chariots didn't fall out of fashion for a while, actually. A lot of different peoples used them even during Rome's reign.
But for the Mediterranean, I believe it was the advent of cavalry that brought it out of favor, because earlier breeds of horse couldn't hold a man they had to use chariots for mobile infantry and archers instead.
>>559079
>No. We're not. We're discussing Greek and Celtish aristoi.
In what way is a Thessalian mercenary who lives of his trade as a soldier not a professional soldier?
>>558309
Except is disputed. Heavily.
>>559117
Ih the way that white himself has chosen to come to this board and continue ignoring evidence that disproves his bad research.
>>557998
Weren't early horses too small to let a single armored man ride on there back any long distance?
>>558450
>Shock as a factor does exist
The term doesn't mean anything.
Historians have used it to describe four different things:
1. In the original meaning, hand-to-hand combat, as opposed to ranged combat.
2. The physical shock of a charge meeting its target.
3. Horses or men being used as high-speed battering rams to smash into the enemy.
4. The psychological shock of a charge.
Unless you define which one you mean, discussions of what qualify as "shock" cavalry are pointless.
>>559841
1. In the original meaning, hand-to-hand combat, as opposed to ranged combat.
2. The physical shock of a charge meeting its target.
3. Horses or men being used as high-speed battering rams to smash into the enemy.
4. The psychological shock of a charge.
You realize these are the same thing in regards to cavalry attacks, right?
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a SINGLE force of cavalry that has entered close combat at the walk.
If you don't intend to charge at speed, you're better off dismounting before you make contact.
>>559897
>To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a SINGLE force of cavalry that has entered close combat at the walk.
How many primary sources do you know of that actually describe the speed of charging cavalry?
Early modern cavalry uniformly charged at the trot.
Horses could not have been used as high-speed battering rams, as it poses an extremely high of a risk that the horse will be injured or killed.
http://www.investigationsofadog.co.uk/2012/08/10/cavalry-tactics-how-did-i-get-here/
>>558291
>Friendly reminder that the entire feudal system in Europe was based on the invention of the stirrup
no, it was based on the Roman system of patronage in the Dominate
kys freshcunt
>>558401
>But doesn't (driver+archer+chariot)/2 weigh more than one rider+horse? Even an armed rider.
you know how you can push a car but can't deadlift one? It's a lot easier to push/pull something than carry it.
