"War Vehicles" of the Ancient World

"The Standard of War and Peace." British Museum

“After this, Absalom brought in chariots and horses and fifty runners.”
15 Samuel 1:XNUMX

Stories about military equipment of the past. Wheeled vehicles are actively used in combat today. Automobiles transport soldiers from the rear to the front lines, while armored combat vehicles participate directly in combat, many of which are equipped with heavy weapons—systems Defense, ATGMs, mortars and even artillery weapons. But that's today, what was it like in the distant past, before the internal combustion engine was invented?

In ancient times, the role of BA was played by chariots and horse-drawn carts. Clearly, for these to appear, the horse itself had to be domesticated first. Moreover, horses of that time were small, so riding them was initially quite difficult. But harnessing them to carts was the most delightful thing. By this time, the wheel must have been invented, for what would a cart be without wheels? True, the North American Indians, those who lived on the Great Plains, did use the travois—a "cart" without wheels, made of poles tied to a horse—but it was used only for transporting luggage.

Again, it wasn't just wheels that were crucial for chariots, but light and durable wheels. And these didn't appear immediately. Let's start with the fact that the remains of the most ancient chariots, belonging to the Sintashta culture, were found by archaeologists at the Krivoe Ozero burial ground in the Southern Urals. Radiocarbon dating allowed them to be dated to 2026 BC. Moreover, the Sintashta chariot was precisely... a chariot as we usually imagine it from our school days: a two-wheeled vehicle with wheels approximately 90 cm in diameter and 10 spokes (one with 11!).

The Experimental Archaeology Laboratory of the SUSU Center for Eurasian Studies reconstructed the discovered chariots. They made an exact replica and tested it in the field. They drove it across terrain similar to that of that distant era. The wheels withstood the sustained load, and the speed they reached was 40 km/h. For a time around 4000 years ago, this was practically a speed record! Moreover, the Sintashta chariot was far from the only one discovered in the region. Sixteen such finds have been made in the Southern Urals, in various burials. However, since they were made of wood, there are simply no surviving chariots. Only remnants of wood remained in the burial chambers. However, since the wheels were dug into the ground during burial, and the soil was clay, their clear imprints were preserved. Therefore, measuring and replicating all of this today would not have been difficult at all.

It is interesting that later, that is, after the invention of these chariots, the Sintashta people rode them to the East, and then clearly descended to the South, and it may well be that it was they who rode them to ancient India, and became there a clan of warriors on chariots, which were so colorfully described in the Mahabharata.

However, chariots weren't the only inventions of the Ural steppe. For example, a solid wooden wheel (70 cm in diameter, 5 cm thick) dating back approximately 5100-5350 years was found near the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana, and a cart wheel, most likely harnessed to oxen, was found in a burial mound from the Maykop culture of the 4th millennium BC in the Krasnodar region. It's difficult to say whether the ancient chariots of the Sintashta people were used in battle or not.

But we do know with absolute certainty who first (at least based on the artifact we know) conceived of using chariots in battle. It was the people of Mesopotamia—the ancient Sumerians. They left us with a unique monument: the "Standard of War and Peace"—a pair of inlaid decorative panels found by L. Woolley's expedition during excavations of the Sumerian city of Ur.

Here is its appearance from the side where the Sumerian war chariots are depicted on the “Standard of Peace and War”

A close-up of a Sumerian chariot. "Standard of Peace and War"

As can be seen, the Sumerian chariot was a fairly massive structure, with a rectangular body and clearly made of wood. The chariot was narrow: two men stood in a row. The driver, a warrior, drove the chariot from the front, while the one in the back fought the enemy. Wooden sides protected them on three sides, with the highest side at the front. Chariots had four wheels. Spoked wheels had not yet been invented at that time, so Sumerian chariots had solid wheels. A drawbar was attached to the front of the chariot body. A curved crossbar, the yoke, was attached to the end of the drawbar, perpendicular to it. The yoke was secured with straps to the backs of the animals that pulled the chariot.

Horses had not yet been domesticated at that time, so Sumerian chariots were pulled by… four donkeys! The warrior and driver wore helmets. But, judging by surviving images, they wore neither armor nor shields. The warrior armed himself with javelins and a spear or axe for close combat. Unlike light infantry, charioteers' javelins had bronze tips.

In modern times, the Sumerian chariot has been reconstructed. It was discovered that it could reach speeds quite respectable for its time—around 20 km/h—but it was also unstable and could easily tip over when turning. They also had another significant drawback: they shook violently, as Sumerian chariots had no shock absorbers. Even on a flat surface, there are bumps and uneven surfaces, so riding a Sumerian chariot off-road was clearly a dubious pleasure.

But for that time she was truly formidable. weaponsWarriors in chariots hurled javelins at the enemy, one after another, as they had a supply of them, easily avoiding close combat. They could be used both as mobile command posts and to pursue retreating enemies, hurling javelins at the backs of those fleeing.

Modern reconstruction of a Sumerian chariot. Fig. A. Shepsa

It is believed that chariots arrived in Ancient Egypt with the Hyksos, who subjugated the nation around 1700 BC. However, the Egyptians soon not only adopted this "combat mechanism" from the Hyksos but also developed their own chariot design, which was significantly lighter than the Hyksos version. And here, archaeologists were truly fortunate. In the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, they found as many as six ancient Egyptian chariots of various types. Among them were two large ceremonial chariots, one small but richly decorated one, and three lightweight ones, clearly intended for everyday use. Their wheels had six spokes, and both the spokes and the rims were made of... birch! The bottom was made of woven leather straps, and the box itself was also leather, with curved wooden arches. That is, the entire structure of the chariot was lightened to the limit, which allowed a team of two horses to pull it at a fairly high speed.

A restored copy of the Egyptian chariot depicting Ramesses II in a war chariot from Abu Simbel. Excerpt from an 1832 book about the expedition by Ippolito Rosellini.

Incidentally, a leather chariot box was also found in the tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose IV (1397-1388 BC), and individual fragments were found in the tombs of Amenhotep II (1428-1397 BC) and Amenhotep III (1388-1351 BC). This means that ancient Egyptian chariots can now be studied in detail...

A white metal miniature depicting an Egyptian chariot at the Battle of Kadesh, 1300 BCE. Manufacturer: Silver Dream Studio and El Viejo Dragon

Chariots were actively used by the Egyptians during military clashes with other peoples, for example, in the Battle of Megiddo and especially in the Battle of Kadesh with the Hittites, where thousands of war chariots were (or could have been!) involved in the battle.

An Egyptian chariot with a figurine of Pharaoh Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh. Manufacturer: Silver Dream Studio and Seil Models

Chariots were also used in Assyria for both war and hunting, as evidenced by their numerous depictions on bas-reliefs.

Assyrian king Ashurbanipal hunting lions. Relief from the Northern Palace in Nineveh, c. 645–635 BCE. British Museum

The Tsar, surrounded by his warriors, in a chariot drawn by three horses. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. Photo by the author.

Assyrian chariots, drawn by three horses, race toward the enemy. The wheels also have six spokes, but the rims are significantly heavier than the Egyptian ones. The body, like the Egyptian ones, features arrow and bow holders. The body also contains a flagpole with an emblem, a spear, and a shield studded with spikes. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. Photo by the author.

An Assyrian chariot. I wouldn't paint the wheel rims or the sides of the box, of course, but... it looks beautiful, to be sure. Admittedly, a king in such a chariot would look even more epic. Manufacturer: Silver Dream Studio and Niena

From Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, we know that the Greeks and Trojans fought under the walls of Troy, also using chariots. And in a rather unique way. Armored kings rode into battle on them and fought from them, using them as an elevated fighting platform. It's possible they wore metal armor, similar to the "Armor of Dendra," and helmets made of boar's tusks.

A 15th-century BC Achaean war chariot. The warriors are dressed as we know from archaeological excavations in Greece. Manufacturer: Silver Dream Studio and Alive History.

At the turn of the 13th and 12th centuries BC, the Greeks also used war chariots: the so-called biga, a two-horse chariot pulled by two warriors, one of whom was armed with a round shield and a pair of spears. A three-horse chariot was called a triga, while a four-horse chariot was called a quadriga. The wheel rims were made of iron. When not in use, the chariots' wheels were removed for better preservation. Since the images of the Iliad and Odyssey in Greece were constantly being modernized over time, it's not surprising that the Greeks, even much later, depicted their heroes in armor from the 5th to 4th centuries BC. Therefore, a set of chariot figurines from the "El Viejo Dragon" company is entirely acceptable!

"The Triumph of Achilles!" Producer: Silver Dream Studio and Alive History

Carthaginian Chariot. Manufacturer: Silver Dream Studio and Niena

Chariots were used by the Carthaginians, the Persians, who attempted to defeat Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela with scythed chariots, and the Celts in England, as we have evidence from Gaius Julius Caesar himself. However, it was only with the development of horse breeding that their role as a means of combat gradually diminished. Horses grew taller and could now be ridden, and chariots began to be used in Rome exclusively for athletic competitions and as honorary transport for emperors during their triumphal processions. Leonardo da Vinci's attempts to revive them in the modern era also failed, as did attempts to use them astanks" based on the idea of ​​Voltaire, who offered a horse-drawn "war machine" to Empress Catherine the Great.

"Voltaire's Tank." Drawing by A. Sheps

Comments

[Sergey Tkach]

"True, the North American Indians, those who lived on the Great Plains, used the travois—a wheelless "carriage" made of poles tied to a horse—but it was used only for transporting luggage." - Vyacheslav Olegovich, + for the article. But horses appeared among the Indians relatively recently, historically speaking, hence the "chariots" they used.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

I’ll clarify.
The North American Indians acquired horses and iron after the arrival of the "white man" on the continent. At that time, the chariot was an anarchy in warfare, so the Indians honed their skills in horsemanship, where they excelled considerably.

[Dedrusav]

Native Americans rode horses and kept them in households almost a century earlier than European archives suggested, The Hill reports, citing a paper published in the journal Science. According to a new study, based on oral traditions and academic archaeology, European colonists did not teach Native Americans how to handle horses; the peoples of the Americas knew about them much earlier. Furthermore, the researchers suggest that horses were used among Native communities from Wyoming to Kansas at least several generations before European archives indicate.

As the publication reports, a team of researchers conducted the first genetic and radiocarbon dating analyses of dozens of horse skeletons housed in museums or Native American settlements. They discovered that these horses were ridden, fed, and cared for long before Europeans recorded them. The scientists' findings thus contradict the established stereotype of the American West, when Native peoples first encountered horse breeding. However, conventional historical accounts rely entirely on European sources, mostly written long after colonization. At the same time, claims by Plains Indians that they domesticated horses before their exposure to European culture were long ignored.

The findings of this study challenge basic assumptions taught in high school history. The common explanation is that Native American horses are the descendants of feral animals that escaped the Spanish conquistadors in the 1600s. For generations, American children were taught that the defining event was the Pueblo Indian revolt against the Spanish conquerors in New Mexico in 1680. The horses were freed, and for a decade, Native Americans had unrestricted access to them. However, the widespread acceptance of this theory obscures how little evidence there is to support it: in the 1500s and 1600s, few Europeans visited thriving Native American communities, and even fewer wrote. Those who left notes were most often missionaries or royal officials struggling with foreign cultures.

[multi-category]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

At that time the chariot was anarchism in military affairs

maybe an anachronism?

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Thanks to Vyacheslav Olegovich for this interesting topic. I think in the South Ural steppes, oxen, not horses, were used to pull chariots (carts).
An exhibit at the Orsk Museum of Local History featuring an ancient Aryan and his chariot. Traditionally, for our museums, the question of "how to attach a one-horsepower, one-ox, or one-donkey engine" hasn't been fully addressed.

[kalibr]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

not worked out

It's a pity the first photo isn't very good, but thanks!

[Konnick]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Traditionally, for our museums the question of “how to attach a one-horsepower/one-ox-power or one-donkey-power engine” has not been worked out.

A very primitive reconstruction, it would have been better not to disgrace themselves with the wheels, they would have gone to the nearest village and bought an old cart

[paul3390]

In our enlightened times, we don't quite understand how complex a structural and technological invention this compound wheel with spokes is. After all, it's incredibly difficult to manufacture, and even more difficult to conceive of the concept itself. And yet, it wasn't the then-leaders of civilization, the Sumerians and Egyptians, who created it, but rather unknown barbarians from the distant north...

Their next wave brought the widespread use of iron, the next—horse breeds for riding, and again the widespread use of cavalry. And all sorts of little things like the composite bow, etc., allowing them to shake the universe of that time again and again...

These northerners, our distant ancestors, were truly a strange people. Very resourceful, extremely quick-witted, and quite warlike...

[Luminman]

Quote: paul3390

barbarians from the far north

Yes! Northern Germany, where archaeologists have found traces of a wheeled vehicle! This is (to date) the earliest evidence of a wheeled vehicle! The Sumerians are smoking on the sidelines...

[Rodez]

Quote: paul3390

These northerners, our distant ancestors, were strange people. Very inventive.

I've been wondering the same thing... I've come to the conclusion (personal speculation) that in the south, ingenuity wasn't needed; what was needed was a broad back to lie under a banana and wait for it to fall, or long legs to run away from a lion... but try to survive among the ice without ingenuity :))

[paul3390]

Well, there's also a much more extensive resource base here. Egypt and Mesopotamia are essentially strips of land along rivers, without any significant mineral wealth. Then again, there's plenty of food due to the high crop yields, and as a result, a plethora of people to toil away. And where would you go from there, anyway? Instead of racking your brains with inventions, it's easier to employ a couple hundred slaves. Cheap and cheerful.

The Indo-Europeans had the entire steppe at their disposal, plus the natural resources of the southern Urals and northern Caucasus. But food wasn't exactly scarce; you had to work hard to find it in our own region. Slaves, on the other hand, were simply unprofitable—they'd eat as much as they produced. Then there were the nasty neighbors on all sides, with no natural barriers. So they had to hustle and bustle, taking advantage of every opportunity... As in the classic story: if you want to live, you'll have to stretch yourself thin.

[Rodez]

Quote: paul3390

If you want to live, you won't spread yourself like this

This is exactly what I meant, in fact, such a "straddling" position has always been and is the true engine of progress in any sense of the word

[paul3390]

That's true. But resources are also essential. If the Indo-Europeans hadn't had free access to the copper deposits of the Urals, the timber of the forest-steppe, and the forage base for nomadic herding, there would have been no phenomenon of their spread across Eurasia. Take the Eskimos, for example—they also faced plenty of challenges, but lacked resources. Hence the level of development...

The ancestors were lucky - they formed a community in an extremely favorable location, and all the necessary factors came together.

[Sergey Valov]

"Rather than racking your brains with inventions, it's easier to employ a couple hundred slaves. Cheap and cheerful." Yet civilization arose in warmer climates, specifically in Mesopotamia and Egypt. But the north was cold and uninviting. Besides, slaves had to be found somewhere, so they went on campaigns through the surrounding countries. Absolutely all wars in all centuries were for the sake of "plunder."

[bk0010]

Quote: Sergey Valov

However, civilization arose in warmer climates, namely in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

It's not the warmth of the land, but the floodplain agriculture: there's nowhere to escape from all the tsars—there's fertile soil here, and all around is desert with all sorts of evil scum. And in the north, a new tsar came. Couldn't fight him off? He moved 20 kilometers along the river and disappeared. So civilization never arose. Formally, because of the lack of centralized power, but in reality, because the people refused to allow themselves to be robbed in any way.

[Sergey Valov]

Civilization only arises where there is agriculture. In warmer climates, agriculture is stable and unsustainable; people become attached to the land and gradually organize into a state. In the north, agriculture is impossible in principle; there, it's a matter of survival, not a measured life. Do people need it? That's why they don't live there. Central Russia is a zone of risky agriculture, with all that that entails. As a result, signs of statehood only began to emerge there toward the end of the first millennium, when the first civilizations had already degenerated.
And yes, I know about the Huns, Mongols, Vikings, etc., but these formations are as far from the civilizations of the Egyptians and Romans as the moon is from the earth.
"It's not the warmth of the land, but the floodplain agriculture" – Italy and Greece didn't have floodplain agriculture. But what floodplain agriculture there was in Judea!

[bk0010]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Civilization arises only where there is agriculture.

Yes, in our area we have slash-and-burn. Ten years in one place, and then we move.

Quote: Sergey Valov

“It’s not about the warmth of the region, but about floodplain agriculture” - in Italy and Greece there was no floodplain agriculture.

You're talking about civilizations that emerged a couple of millennia later than the Sumerians and Egyptians we're discussing. A completely different time, completely different conditions (there were simply more people and different peoples).

Quote: Sergey Valov

And what floodplain agriculture there is in Judea!

Well, it may or may not be jellied, but before the arrival of the Jews, the land there flowed with milk and honey (according to the Bible).

[Sergey Valov]

"10 years in one place, and then move on." They lived in one place, fertilizing the soil with manure and humus, but harvests, due to the climate, were low and unstable. The result was extremely low population density, poverty, and a lack of statehood.
"They emerged a couple of millennia later than the Sumerians and Egyptians discussed"—that's true, but they emerged almost independently. Egypt influenced the peoples of Mesopotamia and Judea, but not Greece or Rome.
"And before the arrival of the Jews, the land there flowed with milk and honey (according to the Bible)" - I appreciate your humor!

[bk0010]

Quote: Sergey Valov

"10 years in one place, and then - move." - lived in one place, fertilized the soil with manure and humus

This is much, much later.

Quote: Sergey Valov

but arose almost independently

Yes. What we call Greeks were actually called Achaeans, who came to the Peloponnese during the Bronze Age catastrophe and brought back the remnants of the truly ancient Greeks (the Cretan-Mycenaean civilization).

Quote: Sergey Valov

Egypt influenced the peoples of Mesopotamia and Judea

Egypt had no influence on the peoples of Mesopotamia, other than trading. They generally considered everyone outside Egypt to be walking dead, to be exterminated. Later, they added the option of "enslaving" them, forcing them to work until they died. They even performed funeral rites for their own merchants leaving the Black Land. By the time Rome emerged, Egypt had degenerated and had no significant influence on Rome.

[multi-category]

Quote: bk0010

Before the arrival of the Jews, the land there flowed with milk and honey (according to the Bible).

i.e. the Jews came and drank all the honey and milk???
Now I understand the Arabs who hate Israel.

[Quzmi4]

"Instead of racking your brains with inventions, it's easier to employ a couple hundred slaves. Cheap and cheerful."
Instead of investing in high technology and its development, it is easier to bring in a couple of hundred thousand villagers

[3x3zsave]

Try to survive among the ice without ingenuity.
On ice, sleds are needed, not chariots. And dogs, not horses.
Proven by Amundsen.

[Rodez]

Quote: 3x3zsave

On the ice, sleds are needed, not chariots. And dogs

Well, that's an image... well, sleds are also needed, and not only in the ice, but also in the snow much further south than Amundsen... but those same dogs also need to be "harnessed", which is also not an easy task :)

P.S. By the way, the question of teams, harnesses &c. is another one and its history is no less interesting than that of the cart itself.

[Korsar4]

Snow falls - even in cities you can think about sleighs.

The city is an unstable system. Snow, rain, fallen leaves – all create problems.

But coping with problems requires resources.

[3x3zsave]

Even in cities you can remember about sleighs.
Yesterday Moscow remembered, today St. Petersburg.

[Korsar4]

A pedestrian can go anywhere. If only there was time and inclination. And a shovel is a useful tool.

[Richard]

A shovel is a useful tool.

[Richard]

And this is an analogue for the especially gifted

[Korsar4]

The last photo is good. Pure sincerity.

[Richard]

The Sumerian chariots also had another significant drawback: they shook violently, since the Sumerian chariots did not have any tires or shock absorbers.

alternative history:

[Richard]

The Sumerian chariots also had another significant drawback: they shook violently, since the Sumerian chariots did not have any tires or shock absorbers.

Seriously, the author is mistaken here. Recently studied fragments of the "Song of Ullikummi," a Hurrian duplicate of the Hittite epic about Kumarbi, describe the gods' preparations for battle with Ullikummi and the beginning of the battle. There are also curious references to war chariots, in particular to certain leather shock absorbers between the axle and the platform. This innovation significantly reduced shaking on rough terrain, increasing the archer's accuracy. The weight of the new Hittite chariot was only about 50 shekels (approximately 40-50 kg). (The Hittite unit of weight is a shekel, 180 uttutu, equal to approximately 8,4 grams, equal to approximately 30-40 kg), which allowed it to be carried over small obstacles by the crew, if necessary. The structure of the chariots is also described there; they were not made entirely of wood, as the Author writes, but rather had a leather-covered frame.

[Richard]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the Hittite chariot crew's protection wasn't the wooden body, but rather the shields hanging on the sides, and, naturally, their maneuverability. By the end of the Hittite Empire (c. 1200 BC), their design reached its peak efficiency. These models had a significant influence on the development of chariotry in Egypt, Mycenaean Greece, and the entire Middle East, becoming a kind of standard for Bronze Age war chariots. The Hittites' attitude toward their war chariots is vividly described in their epic of Kumarbi:

He took the staff in his hands and mounted the chariot.
And it was as if my feet were shod in wild winds, like boots. (c)

[Sergey Valov]

"Try surviving among the ice without ingenuity :))" – that's where people don't live, among the ice. For some reason, everyone is drawn to the sun, to the south. Even now, the "long ruble" isn't an incentive for most.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Rodez

But try to survive among the ice without ingenuity.

They don't really live and never lived - they always tried to move further south...

[Illanatol]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Thanks to Vyacheslav Olegovich for this interesting topic. I think in the South Ural steppes, oxen, not horses, were used to pull chariots (carts).

Why? Wild horses (tarpans) were common in those areas. Bulls weren't particularly suitable for fighting; they weren't fast enough.

[Quzmi4]

Traditionally, for our museums, the question of “how to attach a one-horsepower/one-ox-power or one-donkey-power engine” has not been worked out.

It's absolutely true about the deer - I was at the Murmansk Regional History Museum.

In the photo, the thickness of the walls of the chariot is such that you want couple harness the bulls.

[tlauicol]

Birch chariots in Egypt – amazing! Were they brought from Vladivostok?
How developed was the trade in raw materials even in those days!
Ps. I've always been amazed at the invulnerability of chariots for a thousand years. Didn't they shoot at horses or throw darts? It's enough to hit a horse's tread with a stone.

[Konnick]

Quote: Tlauicol

I've always been amazed by the invulnerability of chariots for a thousand years. They didn't shoot at horses, or throw darts, did they? It would be enough to hit a horse's tread with a stone.

The key word is "hit"... when a wall of chariots is rushing at you at 60 km/h... even if you hit, you'll still be blown away. The only salvation is long spears, projecting the same length, held by several rows of warriors... i.e., the phalanx was invented as a counter to chariots.

[tlauicol]

A chariot covers the same area as a dozen warriors in loose formation. Of ten javelins or arrows, one can hit any horse. That's one volley. And 60 km/h is ideal conditions on a treadmill, without weapons or warriors, just a single driver in a lightweight carriage. Much slower.

[Konnick]

A dozen warriors weigh up to a thousand kilograms, and a chariot, even with two horses and a pair of warriors, is much larger and concentrates upon impact.

[tlauicol]

It's unlikely they used a ramming attack. In that case, ten warriors would turn a horse into a hedgehog.

[Konnick]

But she will do her job, break through the first ranks, and a couple of warriors from a high chariot, relatively invulnerable, will inflict even greater damage, so that only the phalanx with its long spears will keep the Kloesnitsa at a distance

[tlauicol]

No. Kings don't commit suicide. A chariot won't break through an army that knows primitive formation.

[Engineer]

We still need to find highly motivated infantry that won't run away in front of chariots.
The Persians tried to use scythed chariots specifically to crush infantry. So they were calculating something.
In fact, it was largely a psychological battle. The Macedonians proved stronger. But in the times of Sumer and the Hittites, things might have been different, and it's quite possible that the infantry scattered before the devices rushing toward them.

[Billy Bones1972]

Lightly armed warriors threw javelins in loose formation—and I think they knew perfectly well what would happen to them when such a lava of horses rushed towards them. And chariots often fired bows—that is, the chariots raced in front of the enemy line, showering them with arrows beyond the range of the javelin throwers.

[Luminman]

Quote: Konnick

There is only one salvation: long spears protruding to the same length, which are held by several rows of warriors.

Well, you can also unleash elephants (if you have them) to meet the charging chariots! Or drive stakes into the ground (if defending)...

[Olgovich]

Quote: Konnick

There is only one salvation: long spears protruding to the same length, which are held by several rows of warriors.

driven stakes will cripple the horses...

[Konnick]

Quote: Olgovich

driven stakes will cripple the horses...

There was such a moment in the Romanian film Daki

[Illanatol]

Quote: Tlauicol

Birch chariots in Egypt – amazing! Were they brought from Vladivostok?
I have always been amazed by the invulnerability of chariots for thousands of years.

What, the birch trees don't grow any closer? The Scythians probably brought them here. International trade was indeed well-established during the Bronze Age.

They fired. But the chariots could use a technique now known as the "carousel." They would approach the enemy army in an arc and fire at the moment of closest approach, quickly moving out of range of return fire. The javelins and stones most likely simply fell short.
"Horse Caterpillar" is an A!

[kalibr]

Quote: Illanatol

But chariots could use a technique now known as the "carousel."

That's right! They raced toward the enemy as fast as they could, firing arrows that increased in speed and range. Then, at some distance, they turned left and raced along the line, still firing continuously. They did this several times. Their spears and javelins simply didn't reach the horses!

[3x3zsave]

Then at some distance they made a turn to the left
Why to the left?

[dzvero]

Why to the left?

Boys to the left, girls to the right
In my opinion, after a left turn the enemy remains on the right and is easier to fire at.

[3x3zsave]

it's easier to shoot at him.
And on a right-hand drive chariot - on the left!

[Korsar4]

You can use it as a justification for the command: "Turn left."

[Sergey Valov]

"But chariots could use a technique now known as the 'carousel.'" Perhaps so, but as soon as military thought began to develop, war chariots faded away, as they were so easy to fight. Felled tree trunks are an insurmountable obstacle for a chariot, as are a shallow pit, a hillock, or a stream... And the effectiveness of bows is greatly exaggerated. Crassus held his own against Scythian archers at Carrhae without a problem, but the lack of water was his undoing.

[Illanatol]

Chariots have simply been replaced by mounted archers. Everything you've listed is suitable for defense... but only for defense. But what if you need to attack yourself, holding the line?

No, I disagree, if bows survived until the age of firearms, of course, constantly being improved. They were an effective weapon, provided they were used en masse. Let's also consider their rate of fire.

Few legionaries were killed by arrows, but many were wounded. And Crassus's career, as we know, ended tragically.
To hold on is one thing, to win is another.

[Sergey Valov]

"Chariots were simply replaced by mounted archers." Until stirrups appeared, and they didn't appear until the 1st century CE, it's a stretch to talk about cavalry's effectiveness. Of course, there were Numidian horsemen and Alexander's cavalry, but these were rare exceptions. A mounted archer in those days meant shooting an arrow "in the wrong direction."
"But only for defense" – how else? The chariot is an offensive weapon, and one must defend against it.
"What if we have to advance ourselves, holding our own?" Usually, after a failed attack, troops become so disorganized that rallying them for a new attack is extremely difficult. So, you can advance without much fear of chariots.
"If bows survived until the age of firearms," ​​it's because no other throwing weapon besides the crossbow was invented. The crossbow didn't completely replace the bow, but only complemented it. That's why bows lasted so long.
"To hold out is one thing, to conquer is another." I agree completely! However, the Romans gradually overcame the Parthians.

[Billy Bones1972]

What comes to mind is the campaign of the Scythians (and before them the Cimmerians) to Western Asia and 28 years ago the dominion-arrows found as far as Egypt.
Cyrus's very "successful" campaign against the Massagetae archers, Zopyrion's successful campaign, the Greco-Bactrians' success against the Kushans, Peroz's campaign against the Hephthalites
Well, and other successes of sedentary peoples against horse archers

[kalibr]

Quote: Sergey Valov

And the effectiveness of bows is greatly exaggerated; Crassus held his own against the Scythian archers at Carrhae without any problems, but the lack of water was his undoing.

The Egyptians had different opponents, different bows, and different shields. It worked there.

[Sergey Valov]

"It worked there," naturally, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. As soon as their effectiveness began to decline, they found alternatives and abandoned them.

[paul3390]

I don't think chariots were used to break through infantry lines. At least, all known attempts to do so in ancient times ended badly.

But a strike at the flank or rear of an infantry phalanx could have been effective. It's a slow-moving force, and outflanking it with mobile forces is probably not difficult. You can parry it either with your chariots or with a square formation with pikes, but I don't think they used that at the time.

Again, everyone had different concepts of use. The Egyptian chariot is very light, with a driver and an archer. The Hittite, and later the Assyrian, seems to be noticeably heavier, with a crew of three men, a driver, a shield bearer, and a spearman, all armored. Clearly designed for close combat rather than ranged combat. It's difficult to say which was more effective, at least judging by the ambiguous results of the Battle of Kadesh, where, according to descriptions, the mobile components of both armies clashed in the first phase of the battle. This is the first battle more or less documented by both sides, though both the Hittites and the Egyptians firmly claim victory.

[Illanatol]

Quote: paul3390

But a strike on the flank or rear of an infantry phalanx could have been effective. It's a slow-moving force, and outflanking it with mobile forces is probably not difficult.

According to the then PU, the phalanx was to be covered from the flanks by cavalry.
Chariots are still ineffective against a line of warriors with spears. I doubt horses would even charge forward against a dense line of warriors with spears. They'd likely simply get scared, even if they'd been specially trained. More likely, chariots with knives on their wheels were used after the line had become disorganized.
I don't think it was all that difficult for phalanx warriors to repel a flank attack. All they had to do was stand their spears upright, turn 90 degrees, and point them in a new direction. It wasn't all that difficult. The phalanx wasn't as clumsy as many people imagine, otherwise such a formation wouldn't have lasted so long.

[paul3390]

We're talking about a time before cavalry, aren't we? Where did the Hittites or Sumerians get it? The first thing that even remotely resembled it appeared in the new Assyrian kingdom... After the Cimmerian and Scythian invasions, the rulers there quickly figured out what was going on. And they took steps to acquire something similar.

As for the simple matter, I don't think it's that easy to deploy a phalanx. At least, judging by ancient authors, only the Spartans were capable of such a thing, and even then, not always. And even more so—a phalanx not with spears but with sarissas...

The formation held for a long time for one reason: the opponents were exactly the same... Or they accepted the rules of the game, like the Persians did during Philip's invasion. I never understood Darius's actions at Gaugamela... Utter stupidity. But even then, Alexander won by a miracle. Another hour, and the phalanx on the left flank would have been routed, with all the consequences.

[Illanatol]

Did the Sumerians or Hittites have phalanxes? Or did they encounter phalanxes? The Hittites may have fought the Achaeans, but if those Greeks had phalanxes at all, they would have had a very primitive form.
While there was no cavalry, the flanks could be covered by the same chariots.

One should not blindly trust ancient authors, especially since they could have been rewritten many times.
A sarissa is also a spear, just a longer one. I described how to deploy it above; it's not particularly difficult, with proper training.
The formation lasted for a long time because it was quite effective.

Well, let me repeat, one shouldn't take battle descriptions at face value. They're likely distorted for PR and propaganda purposes. History is written by the victors. Even the film "Alexander" is probably closer to the truth than the ancient accounts. In the film, Alexander clearly screws up, but his subordinate corrects his tactical miscalculation.

Many details are patently unreliable in the court historians. They claim the Macedonians simply retreated to the sides and the chariots with knives rushed past. This is sheer nonsense. Let's assume the foot soldiers really did part... what prevented the charioteers from also changing direction and attacking the line anyway? Or from riding through the line, turning around, and attacking from the rear? I'm afraid we'll never know how the battle really unfolded. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that Darius's army was actually smaller in number than the Greek Macedonians. The latter were real "Munchausen" forces... The way the Trojan War was portrayed, even though Troy is just a small village by modern standards. And the idea that the Greeks fielded more warships at Salamis than the Spaniards and Venetians did at Lepanto is also hard to believe.
So I just see it as an interesting fantasy.

[Konnick]

Quote: Illanatol

Did the Sumerians or the Hittites have phalanxes?

Turned left
Someone watched too much Gladiator.

[paul3390]

The Sumerians actually fought in a phalanx formation, judging by the depictions...

Wow! With proper training!! And only the Spartans had it. At least, we only know of any phalanx deployments performed by them. Because the phalanx itself was relatively small and consisted of individuals who had trained their entire lives. It's highly doubtful anyone else possessed such a level of drill training. Well, perhaps Filippych's veterans, but such maneuvers are unknown from his time. And deploying a phalanx of 8 men in 8 rows is quite different from deploying it with 35 men in 30 rows, don't you think?

[Illanatol]

The Sumerians did not use the phalanx. Not every dense formation of infantry with spears is a phalanx.

Where do you get these figures? Do you seriously believe that all the soldiers lined up in a single formation and that the entire army consisted of a single phalanx? That's unlikely. A phalanx is a structural unit consisting of a specific, usually small, number of soldiers. I'd guess several hundred, equivalent to a modern battalion. So there could be dozens of phalanxes in an army. And 30 rows is excessive. It's unlikely there were more than 16 rows. 16 rows of 40-50 soldiers per row is more likely. And this was true for the Macedonian phalanx. The original Greek ones were even smaller. And I don't rule out the possibility that Roman cohorts (standard - 320 soldiers) were a refinement of the Greek phalanx.

[paul3390]

What then is a phalanx?

Whatever it consisted of, it still functioned as a unified structure. All the sources we know of report exactly that. There were no separate, small phalanxes on the battlefield.

[Illanatol]

A phalanx is a structural unit, like a legion or a cohort. Sources shouldn't be trusted blindly, as it's unlikely that there are original sources dating back to that time. Later copies could have been distorted many times by copyists and translators, who were certainly not experts in ancient military affairs.

Do you seriously believe it's possible to marshal thousands or tens of thousands of warriors into a single formation and somehow control them? It's hardly possible. They'd be a mob, not a functional fighting unit.
In general, armies were already divided into units that could maneuver and fight under the command of the commander, but also enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy. This was the case in ancient times, and it was the case in European armies of the 19th century.

[paul3390]

Well, here we can only theorize. Because all the sources emphasize that the phalanx operates as a monolith. This is its strength—and its weakness if the formation breaks. As happened in the wars with Rome, whose legions operated quite differently, relying precisely on the certain autonomy of individual maniples.

[Illanatol]

I have zero, if not negative, confidence in the sources. If we are to believe these sources, Themistocles at Salamis or Alexander's admiral Nearchus commanded hundreds of battle-worthy ships. This is despite the fact that fifteen hundred years later, squadrons consisted of only a few dozen. And how can this be explained? Not to mention that in archaic Greece, according to Homer, the Achaeans assembled over a thousand ships and a vast army, only to spend years besieging a small city a few hectares in size. Is this also credible?

Legions were superior to phalanxes because they were structured from the very bottom up... from the Roman squad to the legion proper, the equivalent of a division. The phalanx was loosely structured internally. Therefore, the Romans were clearly superior in command and tactical flexibility. And during the conquest of Macedonia, the Romans undoubtedly enjoyed numerical superiority and had allies (among the conquered Greeks).

Maniples weren't entirely autonomous. A manipule was part of a cohort. A cohort had two maniples, a maniple had two centuries. This structure was no accident; it allowed the cohort to form a square with precisely four sides.
A comparison between a cohort and a phalanx will definitely not be in favor of the phalanx.

If an entire army were built as a monolith, a single formation, how would it be controlled? How would it maneuver, react to changing conditions, and change the direction of attack? And what would constitute the commander's talent? Imagine a game of chess in which all the pieces move only together and all in the same direction simultaneously. What would be the essence of the game?

[Sergey Valov]

"A cohort of two maniples, a maniple of two centuries." - the cohort consisted of three maniples, a maniple of two centuries.
"This structure is no accident; it allowed the cohort to create a square with exactly four sides"—you're confused. A square can be constructed from any number of units, but the question is: why do it? Ancient armies rarely deployed in deep formations; instead, they were spread out. Of course, there was sometimes a second line of troops and reserves, but in any case, their formations often spanned several kilometers along the front. Regarding the Romans, for example—in the imperial era, they fought in phalanx formations (divided into legions, maniples, and centuries), then in manipular formations, then, in the 1st century BC, they deployed cohorts, and by the end of the empire, they switched back to the phalanx.

[paul3390]

How was knightly cavalry used over the centuries? Before the defeats at Crécy and Poitiers, only the riders wore armor; the horses were unprotected. This didn't stop them from being the main striking force.

And the light steppe cavalry - in theory, should be extremely vulnerable to shelling, but the steppe dwellers with enviable regularity hung on the infantry of civilized countries.

Several explanations are offered here. For example, a horse was an expensive animal, and they tried not to deliberately spoil it, thinking it would be useful after victory. And then there's the idea that a horse is generally quite resilient and tough; you can't kill it off right away with a dart or arrow from a weak bow. And there simply wouldn't be time for a second volley...

[tlauicol]

I think chariots simply had more firepower. They had a powerful bow, and before that, only kings could afford bronze javelins.
As soon as the poor infantry received a good javelin, and then a bow, the wheel-bearer left the scene.
The same thing happened with the first knights—the bow became even more powerful and numerous. And the next 'tanks' in Maximilian armor swept away firearms.

[paul3390]

The bow is only effective for infantry when used en masse. The vaunted longbow is, after all, pure junk, a stick with a rope, primitive. But only the English could field the required number of archers. And simply firing over an area yielded results. Of course, the French were also stupid, exposing themselves to such fire time and again...

The chariot simply became unnecessary after the development of horse breeds suitable for saddles. A mounted archer is much more maneuverable and cheaper than a chariot. And the target is noticeably smaller... A charioteer is always an elite warrior, of whom there couldn't be many. But in the steppe, every man was by definition on horseback and with a bow, making him a fully-fledged combat unit.

[Rodez]

Quote: paul3390

The laudable longbow is, after all, pure junk, a stick with a rope, primitive

Exactly!.. This is probably what explains such widespread use :)
There, the arrowhead was more expensive... the composite bow revolutionized Egypt and allowed for the massive and effective use of war chariots; in "cramped" Europe, there simply weren't enough areas to spin a carousel of chariots; area shooting was more effective.
P.S. The bow in the photo isn't an Egyptian one, but an Asian one. You can't cut one from the nearest tree. It's stronger, but its small size allows for use in the saddle.

[Konnick]

Quote: paul3390

A mounted archer is much more maneuverable and cheaper than a chariot.

Effective horse archers emerged with the invention of stirrups.

[Engineer]

Quote: Konnick

Effective horse archers emerged with the invention of stirrups.

The Scythians, Sakas, Huns and Parthians felt hurt and offended.

[Konnick]

Quote: Engineer

Quote: Konnick

Effective horse archers emerged with the invention of stirrups.

The Scythians, Sakas, Huns and Parthians felt hurt and offended.

I wrote effective ones.

[Engineer]

So the death of entire armies opposing them is not a sign of effectiveness?

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

A charioteer fighter was always an elite warrior, of whom there couldn't be many. But in the steppe, every man was by definition mounted and armed with a bow, making him a fully-fledged combat unit.

A very true look at the past!

[Billy Bones1972]

Somewhere on Instagram I saw someone shooting a replica composite bow at a knight's helmet across a river - quite an impressive sight.
I don't think any poor, unarmored militia would be able to withstand shelling from such weapons for long.

[Illanatol]

Quote: paul3390

Several explanations are offered here. For example, a horse was an expensive animal, and they tried not to deliberately spoil it, thinking it would be useful after victory. And then there's the idea that a horse is generally quite resilient and tough; you can't kill it off right away with a dart or arrow from a weak bow. And there simply wouldn't be time for a second volley...

That's unlikely. When attacking with cavalry, you wouldn't think about preserving your horses, a future trophy. Another issue is that archers were rare among "civilized nations." The exception was our ancestors; even peasants often had hunting bows, so they knew how to shoot. In Europe at that time, the terms "archer" and "poacher" were almost synonymous, so few knew how to shoot. Peasants even had knife length restrictions in some places, let alone bows.
A skilled archer can fire 7-8 arrows (not aiming) before the first one falls. So there would be enough time for a second and third volley. If there was someone to shoot, and even in volleys.
To withstand an attack even from light cavalry, an infantryman must be well-trained, both physically and mentally. Trained warriors were scarce under feudalism, and that's the result.

[bk0010]

Quote: paul3390

Several explanations are offered here.

While you offend a horse, you will get hurt by the rider.

[bk0010]

Quote: Tlauicol

How developed was the trade in raw materials even in those days!

Extremely: copper, tin (from England and Uzbekistan (Cornwall and Zeravshan)), wood, and just about everything else were brought to the interfluve in ancient Greece and Egypt. From there came handicrafts and all sorts of expensive items (made by the artisans of ancient civilizations). The whole world traded. That same Troy flourished along as many as three trade routes. Everything was ruined by the Bronze Age catastrophe: the eruption of a volcano on Santorini, climate change, and the depletion of tin and arsenic. The disaster was compounded by the invasion of the Sea Peoples (the very same Achaeans are one of them), who came to investigate why trade had ceased and the goodies had disappeared, thus finally destroying the Bronze Age world-system. All that remained was a piece of landlocked Egypt.

[Konnick]

It is interesting that later, that is, after the invention of these chariots, the Sintashta people rode them to the East, and then clearly descended to the South, and it may well be that it was they who rode them to ancient India, and became there a clan of warriors on chariots, which were so colorfully described in the Mahabharata.

The oldest burial of a domestic horse and the discovery of a spoked wheel have provided further evidence in support of Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan Hypothesis on the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language.
Many hydronyms in Europe are translated from Sanskrit, the language in which the Mahabharata is written.

[paul3390]

There's a good article by Zharnikova, comparing the hydronyms of the Rigveda and those of the Kama-Oka region. They're practically identical.

[Konnick]

Quote: paul3390

There's a good article by Zharnikova, comparing the hydronyms of the Rigveda and those of the Kama-Oka region. They're practically identical.

I contributed too contribution to our Sanskrit.
In the Vladimir region, there's a river called Voyninga. Often, when driving past this river, I'd think about its peculiar name. The singer Vaenga's stage name and the name of this river are essentially the same thing. Vaenga is the river in the singer's hometown of Severomorsk. There are many rivers with similar names. It translates from Sanskrit as "road to war." In the Middle Ages, southern Slavs called children born after their fathers went off to war this way. Incidentally, Voitsek is also one of these names, and so is Voyninga. "Ga gat" means "road," and "Voin" is a warrior. Zharnikova's version, however, had them coming from the north, while I consider it coming from the southeast to the northwest.
The simplification of names took place

[Konnick]

Judging by all ancient depictions, people began riding horses later than chariots. Although donkeys may have been ridden even earlier.
By the way, they write that the pharaohs' haplogroup is ours, Slavic, just like the rajas and Levites. In other words, they were planted Cossacks from the South Ural steppes.

[Luminman]

I'd like to add that while the concept of a wheel may seem primitive to many of us today, the engineering solutions required to create it thousands of years ago by our ancestors were actually quite complex! How can a wheel be made perfectly round? How can friction between the shaft and the wheel hub be reduced? How can rotational precision be ensured? How can the lifespan of its components be extended? A solution appears - a bearingNot quite the same as we know it today, of course, but for its time, it was a true breakthrough! After this, engineers of the time began to think about how to make wheels lighter, how to prevent wheel deformation, and how to absorb some of the shock loads when driving on uneven surfaces. A spoke appears!

I take my hat off to the inventors of those days, the ones wearing furs, who came up with all these solutions from their own heads, not from ready-made reference books, as we do today. Incidentally, the very manufacture of the wheel, without a lathe or precision measuring instruments, commands no less respect than the invention of the wheel itself...

P.S.I have a question! What came first - the cartwheel or the potter's wheel?Google do not open! )

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

How to extend the service life of parts?

Yeah, but only since the end of the century before last, and there’s a bucket of turpentine on the cart!!!

[Luminman]

Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

Yeah, but only since the end of the century before last, and there’s a bucket of turpentine on the cart!!!

Ancient people did not know any turpentine, nor did they know modern greases; they used the old-fashioned way - animal fat...

[Nikname2025]

The first wheel of the cart is a potter's wheel.

[Luminman]

Quote: Nikname2025

The first wheel of the cart is a potter's wheel

The answer is correct!

[Nikname2025]

Their wheels had six spokes, and both the spokes and the rims were made of wood... birch!

I didn't understand why the presence of birch was so surprising. Birch grows from the subtropics to the tundra. Birch, used to make bows, staffs, and chariot parts, was imported to Egypt from Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). It still grows there today. Incidentally, quivers decorated with birch bark were found in the same tomb of Tutankhamun.

[Nikname2025]

There's a typo in the text. "Arial" should be read as "areal."

[3x3zsave]

I didn't understand why the presence of a birch tree caused such surprise.
Because most people imagine the Middle East as it is today. How much wood do you think it takes to smelt one talent of copper?

[Nikname2025]

How much wood do you think is needed to smelt one talent of copper?

Do you want to offend a metallurgist?
Seriously, there's no definitive answer to this question. Current estimates of the copper-to-charcoal ratio vary widely, from 20:1 to 40:1. The first estimate is based on European sources. The second is based on practical smelting experiments using ancient technology, conducted by a renowned expert in this field, the British archaeologist and metallurgist Ronald F. Tylecote. Accordingly, smelting 1 kg of copper requires 100 to 200 kg of charcoal. Converting this to wood would require approximately 700 to 1500 kg.

[3x3zsave]

Do you want to offend a metallurgist?
And there was no thought!
What I mean is, people can't see the forest beyond the desert. This is Timna. Ancient Egyptian copper mines.

[Nikname2025]

A familiar place. I visited it during a trip to Israel. Unfortunately, digital cameras didn't exist back then, and the old albums are lost forever.

[3x3zsave]

My photos were also lost during the data transfer. I was there in January 2018.

[kalibr]

Quote: 3x3zsave

My photos are lost too.

What the hell...

[3x3zsave]

I'm crying myself. The Timna block was the one that got erased.

[Nikname2025]

What the hell...

In my case... not "us".

[3x3zsave]

A familiar place. I visited it during my trip to Israel.
And autumn is beautiful there! We teamed up with a couple of other people and hired a local tour guide. He took us for a drive around the area in his Dodge.

[Nikname2025]

It was easier for me. They took us wherever we asked. The desire to sign a lucrative contract can sometimes greatly contribute to putting together a comprehensive excursion program.

[3x3zsave]

Well, I'm a tourist. I had the idea of ​​renting an SUV for a day and driving around the desert, but the lack of rental agencies in Eilat and the specific nature of the region put us off.

[Nikname2025]

drive through the desert

The idea isn't great, even with a GPS. In 2020, 131 people went missing in the Saudi Arabian desert.

[3x3zsave]

That's not the point. In January of that year, Mr. Trump visited Israel and immediately declared Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish state. Understandably, the proud Palestinians were immediately and incredibly outraged, to which the titular nation decisively rebuffed...
In general, I considered it inadvisable to travel around a country where a curfew had practically been imposed.

[Nikname2025]

I've been to the desert twice, in the Karakum Desert and the Sahara. And both times, the locals took these expeditions very seriously, even though we didn't venture deep into the wilderness. In Egypt, we were accompanied by a vehicle with an army radio and a local Bedouin who could identify the location by the color of the rocks and sand.

[3x3zsave]

I have never been to sandy deserts, but in Arava they explained to me: go towards the sunset, you will always come out to people (what kind of people are these is the next question).

[Nikname2025]

Didn't they say how long it would take? According to the map, if you head straight west from Wadi al-Arab, you can walk across the entire desert to the ocean. Best not to try.

[3x3zsave]

then you can walk through the entire desert to the ocean.
No, you can't. This direction is controlled by Palestinians and partly by Bedouins (that's what they told me). And beyond that is the Egyptian border, the Bruno spiral, three meters high and in three rows (I've seen it myself).

[UA3QHP]

Copper to charcoal ratios vary widely, from 20:1 to 40:1.

Accordingly, to smelt 1 kg of copper, 100 to 200 kg of charcoal will be required.

Based on the first line, 1 kg of copper requires 20-40 kg of coal.

[Nikname2025]

Based on the first line, 1 kg of copper requires 20-40 kg of coal

Correct. I had five kilograms of copper in mind, but wrote down one.

[kalibr]

Quote: Nikname2025

If converted into wood, this is approximately from 700 kg to 1500 kg.

And so ancient Cyprus became an ecological disaster zone. All the sycamore forests were destroyed!

[Korsar4]

Sycamore trees take a long time to grow, and their wood is dense. It's no coincidence that pharaohs' sarcophagi were made from sycamore trees, among other things.

And in the wooden era - wooden swords.

[Korsar4]

And among King Solomon's advisers was a minister in charge of sycamore affairs. A respected man.

[3x3zsave]

It's called the "Bronze Age energy crisis." It happened everywhere where copper was mined on a large scale: Cyprus, Iberia, Timna... The first man-made environmental disaster in history. It's just that somewhere, nature managed to repair the damage caused by humans, and the Arava remained a desert.

[Korsar4]

Date pits can take a long time to collect.

[Illanatol]

Quote: 3x3zsave

How much wood do you think is needed to smelt one talent of copper?

Many. In ancient times, the strip of fertile soil along the banks of the Nile was much wider than it is today. The Great Pyramids of Giza didn't stand amidst the sands. There were forests, fields, and gardens there. But by deforestating the forests, including palm trees, for metallurgy, the Egyptians caused a true environmental disaster. The deserts began to encroach, the population declined, and Egypt entered a period of decline.

[Nikname2025]

For example, a solid wooden and fairly well-preserved wheel (70 cm in diameter, 5 cm thick) dating back approximately 5100–5350 years was found near the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana.

In fact, the wheel from the Ljubljana Marshes is the oldest one ever found. No older ones have yet been found.

[Konnick]

Quote: Nikname2025

In fact, the wheel from the Ljubljana Marshes is the oldest one ever found. No older ones have yet been found.

The article is about the oldest spoked wheel, which was found in the Southern Urals.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

there won't be time...

You, Pavel, have a very good understanding of the realities of the past...

[Nikolaevich I]

It's a shame this article didn't include Persian combat (scythed) chariots! "Direct" predecessors of tanks!

[Illanatol]

What tanks are they? They proved ineffective. Perhaps only against savages who lack organization and don't know how to fight in formation. Or for pursuing a retreating enemy. The crew's most vulnerable part (the horses) is in front, the weapons are behind. For effective use, the opposite is better.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Illanatol

What tanks are they? They turned out to be ineffective.

Were the first British tanks really that effective? Their initial effectiveness was purely psychological—"scare"! And by the way, compare the tanks of 1916 with those of the late 20th and early 20th centuries! They're separated by only less than a century! And if you compare the Renault F17 and T-34, it's even less! But you're going to criticize war chariots separated from modern tanks by hundreds and even thousands of years? Fine...so long as they were before the early 20th century!

[Illanatol]

The very first tanks were relatively effective; they still offered decent protection against machine gun fire, and were at least capable of breaking through defensive lines. The Germans didn't immediately adopt this type of weaponry, as they had more heavy artillery that performed a similar function. But they, too, began building tanks.
Exactly. Sorry, but chariots weren't a new military innovation in Darius's time. They'd been around for centuries. But their effectiveness was still low.
It’s not me who’s blaming it, it’s the practice of using it that has put everything in its place.

[Nikolaevich I]

War chariots could have been like this! Like the Celtic Esseds and the Japanese Agami Gurumi! What could they not be if not wheeled "tanks"?

[Konnick]

Don't forget about wagenburgs, they were used even with the widespread use of firearms.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Konnick

Don't forget about wagenburgs

I haven't forgotten! I just decided that wagenburgs are a little different! For example, the Persian war chariots I commented on are "offensive" vehicles! And wagenburgs are defensive! But since we're on the subject of "great wheeled drinking," we might as well remember the "APCs" of antiquity—mobile cover! They're primarily siege vehicles, but in some ways, they're functionally similar to modern APCs, which deliver infantry to enemy trenches and strongpoints! Moreover, such cover wasn't just portable, but also wheeled! And just like armored vehicles in WW1, with drawbridges and fascines against ditches, those "APCs of antiquity" were used for the same purpose!

[Quzmi4]

The picture is pure fantasy, and not particularly clever. How did this thing turn? What was the height of the bump that inevitably caused it to flip? How were the horses controlled? It's obvious...

[Nikolaevich I]

I understand you! It was "painful" to look at these illustrations myself! And the same questions arose! But such "battle wagons" were used by the Scots in the 15th century and the "Tudor" army in the 16th... The thing is, such "tachankas" did not gallop at the enemy at full speed, but moved slowly! In this case, control was "simplified"! Very often, such wagons were used as wagenbourgs, but sometimes, they went on the attack, as "assault field towers"! During the attack, "battle wagons" were lined up in battle formation (for example, a column) and slowly advanced on the enemy. "Infantry" partly remained on the wagons, supporting their comrades with fire, partly moved alongside the wagons. This reminds me of those movies where German armored personnel carriers slowly move across the field, while infantry marches alongside them, some of whom fire from the armored personnel carriers! The carts were also used as checkpoints in the modern sense (in Ukraine, they once produced a batch of towed "mobile checkpoints" in armor for the Ukrainian Armed Forces). P.S. By the way, "Celtic Esseds" is a misnomer! "ALICE" let me down! Esseds were two-wheeled, two-horse Celtic chariots...

[Quzmi4]

"I am an artist, this is how I see it" - this is our everything.

[Nikolaevich I]

I wrote what I read on the Internet: "Tactics of using
Some features of the tactics of using wagenburgs:
During the attack, the wagons were arranged in columns of up to four. Infantry was positioned both on the wagons and among them.
During an attack, the horses were unharnessed from the wagons, and the wagons themselves were lined up in a rectangular structure, secured with chains. The entrances to this fortification were blocked, and if possible, the entire wagon fort was surrounded by a ditch.
Cannons were mounted across some of the carts and were installed rigidly so that they did not turn during firing.
Sometimes guns loaded with "lots" (buckshot) were placed in the spaces between the battle wagons."
So, bother the internet, not me! I've already spent too much of your time (in vain, as it turns out!)...

[Quzmi4]

(c) "Why are you so upset? You'll never be able to kill yourself like that."
I'm telling you about the completely unviable design in the PICTURE, and you're telling me about the prototype, that's all.

[Yuri_K_Msk]

I wonder if anyone has tried to reproduce a wooden wheel with spokes of 70-100 cm in diameter using only the tools and technologies available 2-3 thousand years ago?

[Nikname2025]

We tried. There's even a documentary about it - "Building Pharaoh's Chariot."

[UA3QHP]

I wonder if anyone has tried to reproduce a wooden wheel.

The tools there are not very exotic (an axe, a saw, a chisel), but even the simplest lathe is highly desirable.

[Olgovich]

Chinese war chariots, which originated in the Shang-Yin Dynasty in 1600 BC, were two-wheeled carriages drawn by two horses that played a key role in warfare, equipped with bows, dagger-axes (ge) and drums to control and intimidate the enemy,

[Sergey Ermakov]

Forgot to mention the Civil War tachanka - the last chariot

[Andriuha077]

"Show the bow to Rama!" And the monarch ordered his advisers:
"Bring here the bow, adorned with flowers and sandalwood!" Obeying the king's will, the servants retreated into the city and returned pushing the bow before them. Five hundred tall, strong men could barely pull the eight-wheeled cart, which carried the enormous iron box containing the bow. (Ramayana, Chapter 67)
Rama draws the bow of alternathistory

[Quzmi4]

For some reason, I immediately thought: “I don’t get it, what kind of mold did they cast it in?”

[Andriuha077]

I don't know what or why, but there are a lot of similar things. One of the versions seems to be another cargo cult with the use and copying of objects beyond their original meaning and purpose, which occurred both then and in our time, for the sake of involvement in the unprovable mysterious and the grandeur that stems from its secrets.

[novoku]

Excellent article. The evolution of wheels in fresco photos is very interesting.

[bubalik]

A wagon for transporting Rodman’s siege weapon.