Horses and chariots.

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/1/00 7:21:23 AM, you wrote:

<<If chariots came to Egypt from Mittani Aryans, this doesn't make sense.
In India, all chariot mounted warriors used the long bow. I think that
the same is implied by Avestic evidence. Anthony and Vinogradov suggest
this as the reason for the switch from riding to chariotry among
Indo-Iranians (to answer the question of why anybody would do so). >>

I don't know how the dates jive - but the move to cavalry by the Assyrians is
apparently connected to developments in the saddle and armor.  Almost all
representations of riders from the period show no stirrups in the Near East
and Europe - including most Scythian  and Thracian evidence.  That's plainly
true in Greek and roman times.

I still think that archers in chariots - from the point of view of
concentration of forces - is very inefficient as Clancy et al points out with
regard to the horse in general.  SciAm for example published an article on
slingers awhile back that seemed to give them the big edge as a
projectile-using force with incredible range when used en masse.  The
mobility the archer on chariot gained was hardly worth the concentration of
force and accuracy you'd get from massing standing archers.  I suspect once
again that the use of the archer on chariot was an elite matter in big
battles and had to do more with very specific targets or separate battles
between better armor-clad and mounted aristocrats.  That's why they got the
press they did.  To a main force of archers or slingers, chariots would have
been very vulnerable at great distances.  They would never have been able to
do anthing more but harass a main line of infantry - which is what we see
historically.

Regards,
Steve Long