I was mentioning to a new online aquiantance my desire to someday re-create a chariot. She then informed me that historically chariots were only pulled by two horses and never by one and that before I ever pulled the chariot I needed to get another horse.

I'd never heard of this before but thought I would post here to see if anyone had information on this?

Martin

--------------------

--------------------

1) Not suitable for all terrain: mobility issues

2) Not rugged or big enough for the evolving military

3) They evolved into the larger wagons that had defensive and offensive capabilities.

Crimson,
what type of chariot? From what time period?

Greek
Roman
Egyptian
Celt

I think you need a minimum of two to four horses. A well matched brace or team. I think your Friesan might be a bit big to pull one. I think you'd need a team of lighter, faster horses like Arabs.

One of the Eyptian archaeologists recreated an Eyptian chariot. Two horses. It was a rickety looking thing that performed terribly (I think) at low speeds, but stabilized at faster speeds. He was experimenting with archery from it. It was light and swift, but he was only going across flats. No other terrain.

Jenn

--------------------

Martin

[ 09-23-2005: Message edited by: Martin ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fire Stryker:
Crimson, what type of chariot? From what time period?

Greek
Roman
Egyptian
Celt

I think you need a minimum of two to four horses. A well matched brace or team. I think your Friesan might be a bit big to pull one. I think you'd need a team of lighter, faster horses like Arabs.

---

Actually, I'd be interested in seeing versions of all of the above! But my main interest was a Roman chariot with a greek a close second.

I honestly didn't plan to do much with it; certainly no racing or anything like that. I haven't seen a one horse pulled cart that appealed to me aesthetically and for me to really get into a project that is a factor. (So I'm a little superficial! )

My fiance has a great interest in reproducing a viking cart that was forwarded to us complete with plans as it had already been reproduced in a dog-pullable size. It ould be great for carrying inanimate objects but not people (comfortably). His persona is viking tho so of course he loved it.

The emerged in the Middle East, the fertile crescent, at first, as military vehicles, due to some genius seeing them as a quicker way to move people about a relatively level battlefield. Pop an archer on board, and you had mobile firepower. The horses and mules in use at the time were not large enough, or suitable enough to reliably carry a rider through adverse conditions, like a proper cavalry mount ought.

As soon as horses capable of being ridden in combat emerged, chariots were relegated to being the expensive novelties and playthings of the wealthy - it was much chaeper and more efficiant, allowing incredibly increased mobility to put that archer or spearman on an individual horse. The chariot was always limited in the sorts of terrain it could go over, while the horse is able to cover much rougher ground. It was a worldbeater on level ground, a milenia or two before Christ, when the primary target was blocks of comparitavely poorly equiiped spearmen and unarmoured infantry archers. Dig a ditch or some postholes in front of your position, over likely chariot ground, and it was less than useless.

You only find them in military use in backwaters the closer you get to the AD mark, usually in places with notably small equines, like Ireland or Britian, and they didn't last in any military role at all much beyond the first century AD.

One horse carts are very rare, really. Even the smaller Medieval carts are usually two horses, harnessed one ahead of the other - not in tandem.

--------------------

Stuart Piggott, "Wagon, Chariot and Carriage", Thames and Hudson, 1992.

But especially good is:

Arthur Cotterell, "Chariot: the astounding rise and fall of the world's first war machine", London: Pimlico, 2004.

Apart from the problems that chariots could run into, that have already been mentioned, consider it from a purely resources-based viewpoint too.

For a chariot to deliver one archer or spearman to the battle (assuming the driver only fights when things go totally to pot):
- Chariot (cost to build and maintain, repair crews and specialised equipment on campaign)
- 2+ horses (though they were smaller types) that were the few graduates of a brutal selection process (read Ann Hyland, "The Horse in the Ancient World")
- At least one groom/attendant for the horses, possibly themselves moving on horseback
- Driver, with some sort of armour

By comparison, the cavalryman:
- 1 Horse, large enough to carry the weight
- Groom/attendant/squire, probably with a lighter riding horse
- Tack for the horse
- Armour and weapons for rider
- Shared resources to look after and transport the above, shared with other elements of the army

Basically, it took more than twice the resources to deliver an archer/spearman by chariot, but at least he could concentrate on his task fully. The Cavalryman had the extra work of controlling his horse, but two could be fielded for the cost of one chariot, so once riders became skilled enough to do everything well enough on the battlefield, the days of the chariot were numbered, except in parades - and there it became a combination of conspicuous consumption and novelty. The transformation really got started between the 9th century BC (when the Assyrian armed rider was often led into battle by an attendant mounted on another horse - pretty inefficient) and the 7th century BC, when the rider was doing it all himself, but still with a lot to learn.