I suspect there's only a few ways you can use a chariot effectively, and if anyone tries a different way, they lose the fight. So eventually all chariot warriors around the world will end up doing the same things.
The chariots of India are actually much different and more specialized for heavy combat. We have found 3 near-intact specimens from the Sinauli site now.
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan The other thing is that chariots don't require as strong horses as later cavalry. Cavalry developed after chariots as the breeding of horses improved for strength and endurance.
You wouldn't think the chariot would be that useful in warfare, even with two horses it's about half the speed of a man riding a horse. & if even one of the horses was killed or the driver it's gonna stop. & if you charged into battle every one of the enemy's javelin & arrow's will be aimed at you
The horses in those days were not bred into the large and fast horses that we have today. See how small the horses are? An armored man on top of one of those would not be a very fast unit.
best way to think of Chariots is as a precursor to "true" cavalry. As horses were domesticated early breeds were smaller than modern breeds- by building a platform to ride on allows the infantry to both shoot as well as travel faster than a man on foot. interesting way to think about it is that Chariots were an expensive item to maintain compared to later cavalry forces meaning that powerful states like Egypt or Babylon could afford to maintain large armies of elite chariot warriors who would largely be fighting poorer enemies on foot. the Chariot corps is a precures to cavalry- elite armored warriors (who were often of noble blood) who almost certainly could also fight on foot. Just being able to out run your enemy gives you the advantage of either chasing down fleeing enemies or staying out of reach of a numerically superiors force.
5 YEARS AGO, but its still a very good point. Even Philip and Alexander of Macedonia had the same issues, in fact they were not supposed to use cavalry to break into an infantry formation, but they adapted and redefined how cavalry can be used. But this is considering the rider's training and horse breeding that had been seriously advanced by the age, so much that sometime after Alexander the great's death, the Greeks at Alexandria Eschate, fought a war against the "Chinese" of the day because they would not give/share with them their secrets or samples of their heavy-large breeds of warhorses. This was a monster compared to the standard horse of the far east. With that said in relation to the horse... Chariots had 2x the problem of just riding a single horse. And that is the reason, you have living creatures pulling you chariot which is meant to be a platform for you and others to shoot from, so you do not want to get your platform stuck in rocky terrain, or charge into people because you are now stuck, just you, your driver are deep withing enemy lines, swarmed/overrun, and the horses, they die first so you are not going anywhere, and since you are surrounded, you both die just like that because you decided to drive into an infantry line. This was also proven at the battle of Gaugamela, where the chariots of king Darius were designed and supposed to break/grind the center of the Macedonian phalanx, this was not successful because of the same flaws you pointed out and the Macedonian mouse traps completely neutralized this charge. However this tells us that by design, and based on the fact that it was discovered that King Darius and his generals planed this as a critical deployment and even went so far as to level and clear the battlefield, and pinned down the Macedonian phalanx center because Alexander was moving his whole army forward and slightly to the right, what I get from this is that these scythed chariots where meant to crush an enemy army group head-on, so they must have performed this in the past with great success. So the chariots had gone through some development with time, the chariots were heavy duty built with blades, the horses were bigger, stronger, faster and armored, the riders were ranged and close combat elites. The Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, and probably Mycenean chariots were more of a "keep your safe distance from the main engagement of infantry and shoot into the fray" type of weapon, and if the enemy force collapsed and attempted to retreat, your chariot company would be used to hunt down the retreating force, and if you are on the side of the retreating force, you would use your chariot to help cover the retreat of your main army, shooting arrows to repel the enemy, and when you need to get more involved, you help cover the flanks, and as a mobile unit, you need to circle around the enemy, as the Mongols and Native Americans would do to overwhelm and decimate the enemy with arrows while on horseback (different set-up, same concept) and if the need arises, you would engage side to side with the enemy chariot broadsides colliding, throwing javelins, arrows, if you are close enough you draw your blades and have at it or you try to cut the enemy's reins, or you level your spear and kill, the driver, the warrior, a horse or jamb the wheel of your enemy causing them to slow down or break the wheel, remember you have a large assortment of weapons in your chariot, technically an arsenal. Be it the Celtic chariot, Egyptian, Assyrian, Israelites, Persian, Mycenean, and even Chinese chariot styles of warfare, the following would be the true and similar most of the time if not all. The charioteers trained their whole life until the point of combat, and they could not just be anyone getting on the chariot to start shooting, they had to be made fully aware of the dos and don'ts when in battle by the older veterans who passed on the knowledge, and by the way, the chariot breed of warriors was mostly the aristocratic type, or as a knight or lord cast of the time would be. The chariot was the tank of their day, and it was expensive to make and maintain, so you would not be so eager to toss all your expensive, many years to make and train chariot, horses and rich noble crew into a cheap Hollywood charge into infantry, cavalry, or other chariot units. Good cinematics, but not too good if you are pharaoh of Egypt, or Hittite king and princes that can pick up the phone and order 400+ chariots ETA within 2-3 business days back in 1274 BC. So are they useful? absolutely yes. Are they deadly? damn right. Are they fragile? most definitely. Are they slow? hell no. Was it a brilliant weapon? If you know what you are doing, it may just be the most incredible invention in the history of mankind. Using a wonderful combination of engineering, combat ability, the man and horse relationship/connection, and beautiful craftsmanship. This was a valuable tool and it had it's function, with different innovations or approaches on as to what or how to design them.
Two horses and two people seem like a waste for one bow to be employed. Two horses and 2 men could be 2 mounted archers flinging twice as man arrows if they would just get rid of the stupid chariot.
in some depictions they show the driver joining in on the fun and shooting too as they show two bows aiming, the whole concept around a second man reminds me of a WSO fighter jets you can live with out him but you need him for high stress environment
Horses back then were too small to carry a grown man. If you do your research you will find that cavalry literally did not exist until sometime after the Bronze Age collapse. Therefore, this is the most effective way to wield a mobile archer on the battlefield. The people who invented chariots weren’t fools, if they had horses capable of carrying a man then someone would’ve asked the same question you did. Chariots were the most effective and most popular for this time.
@@aaronjefferson279 exactly sir. I have seen too many people trying to prove that ancient warriors were fools who fought on Chariots. Many just trying to figure out drawbacks of chariot armies in order to prove superiority of cavalry or horseback archers. My question is that, if cavalry is so superior, then way USA, China, etc not using them on battlefield, since last 500 years? People must understand that there was an era of any popular technology, until getting replaced.
He says that a particular type of javelin is from Qadesh, and that another type of javelin -- the spinning type with the cord -- is from Egypt. He doesn't say that either culture "invented" the javelin. (And it would be a silly thing for him to say, because javelins are just throwing spears, and people have been throwing their spears since the days of the cavemen).
1:07 I always thought the Khopesh was multi-functional but Loads breakdown was great, it is in his opinion the best design for a sword.
It's certainly a minority opinion.
Yeah. In my opinion, the best sword would probably be an arming sword.
well, the khopesh evolved from an axe. so it is not necessarily all that great of a "sword" but it did its specialized job well.
I got a laugh at Saheed in the background 0:31 wincing everytime the host would wave the weapons around. I'd stay well out of reach too lol.
Great job, Mike. Love your enthusiasm!
Allas!Horses are same as medieval-era but the peoples are totally changed,what a beautiful warfare styles
This ancient egyptian weapons and chariots looks simmilar to indian iron age weapons of ramayana epic! So strange simmilar.
I suspect there's only a few ways you can use a chariot effectively, and if anyone tries a different way, they lose the fight. So eventually all chariot warriors around the world will end up doing the same things.
The chariots of India are actually much different and more specialized for heavy combat. We have found 3 near-intact specimens from the Sinauli site now.
No comparison.😂
Can someone please tell the name of the papyrus that states the weapons one should have on a chariot ? I didn't quit get it
One of the weaknesses of chariots is that they can't turn on a dime.
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan The other thing is that chariots don't require as strong horses as later cavalry. Cavalry developed after chariots as the breeding of horses improved for strength and endurance.
Ancient Britons are the exception
You wouldn't think the chariot would be that useful in warfare, even with two horses it's about half the speed of a man riding a horse. & if even one of the horses was killed or the driver it's gonna stop. & if you charged into battle every one of the enemy's javelin & arrow's will be aimed at you
The horses in those days were not bred into the large and fast horses that we have today. See how small the horses are? An armored man on top of one of those would not be a very fast unit.
Chariots were popular long before cavalry existed and eventually faded as cavalry rose to prominence.
What the two comments above mine says is exactly right. Chariots died out as cavalry developed.
best way to think of Chariots is as a precursor to "true" cavalry. As horses were domesticated early breeds were smaller than modern breeds- by building a platform to ride on allows the infantry to both shoot as well as travel faster than a man on foot.
interesting way to think about it is that Chariots were an expensive item to maintain compared to later cavalry forces meaning that powerful states like Egypt or Babylon could afford to maintain large armies of elite chariot warriors who would largely be fighting poorer enemies on foot.
the Chariot corps is a precures to cavalry- elite armored warriors (who were often of noble blood) who almost certainly could also fight on foot. Just being able to out run your enemy gives you the advantage of either chasing down fleeing enemies or staying out of reach of a numerically superiors force.
5 YEARS AGO, but its still a very good point. Even Philip and Alexander of Macedonia had the same issues, in fact they were not supposed to use cavalry to break into an infantry formation, but they adapted and redefined how cavalry can be used. But this is considering the rider's training and horse breeding that had been seriously advanced by the age, so much that sometime after Alexander the great's death, the Greeks at Alexandria Eschate, fought a war against the "Chinese" of the day because they would not give/share with them their secrets or samples of their heavy-large breeds of warhorses. This was a monster compared to the standard horse of the far east. With that said in relation to the horse...
Chariots had 2x the problem of just riding a single horse. And that is the reason, you have living creatures pulling you chariot which is meant to be a platform for you and others to shoot from, so you do not want to get your platform stuck in rocky terrain, or charge into people because you are now stuck, just you, your driver are deep withing enemy lines, swarmed/overrun, and the horses, they die first so you are not going anywhere, and since you are surrounded, you both die just like that because you decided to drive into an infantry line. This was also proven at the battle of Gaugamela, where the chariots of king Darius were designed and supposed to break/grind the center of the Macedonian phalanx, this was not successful because of the same flaws you pointed out and the Macedonian mouse traps completely neutralized this charge. However this tells us that by design, and based on the fact that it was discovered that King Darius and his generals planed this as a critical deployment and even went so far as to level and clear the battlefield, and pinned down the Macedonian phalanx center because Alexander was moving his whole army forward and slightly to the right, what I get from this is that these scythed chariots where meant to crush an enemy army group head-on, so they must have performed this in the past with great success. So the chariots had gone through some development with time, the chariots were heavy duty built with blades, the horses were bigger, stronger, faster and armored, the riders were ranged and close combat elites. The Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, and probably Mycenean chariots were more of a "keep your safe distance from the main engagement of infantry and shoot into the fray" type of weapon, and if the enemy force collapsed and attempted to retreat, your chariot company would be used to hunt down the retreating force, and if you are on the side of the retreating force, you would use your chariot to help cover the retreat of your main army, shooting arrows to repel the enemy, and when you need to get more involved, you help cover the flanks, and as a mobile unit, you need to circle around the enemy, as the Mongols and Native Americans would do to overwhelm and decimate the enemy with arrows while on horseback (different set-up, same concept) and if the need arises, you would engage side to side with the enemy chariot broadsides colliding, throwing javelins, arrows, if you are close enough you draw your blades and have at it or you try to cut the enemy's reins, or you level your spear and kill, the driver, the warrior, a horse or jamb the wheel of your enemy causing them to slow down or break the wheel, remember you have a large assortment of weapons in your chariot, technically an arsenal.
Be it the Celtic chariot, Egyptian, Assyrian, Israelites, Persian, Mycenean, and even Chinese chariot styles of warfare, the following would be the true and similar most of the time if not all.
The charioteers trained their whole life until the point of combat, and they could not just be anyone getting on the chariot to start shooting, they had to be made fully aware of the dos and don'ts when in battle by the older veterans who passed on the knowledge, and by the way, the chariot breed of warriors was mostly the aristocratic type, or as a knight or lord cast of the time would be. The chariot was the tank of their day, and it was expensive to make and maintain, so you would not be so eager to toss all your expensive, many years to make and train chariot, horses and rich noble crew into a cheap Hollywood charge into infantry, cavalry, or other chariot units. Good cinematics, but not too good if you are pharaoh of Egypt, or Hittite king and princes that can pick up the phone and order 400+ chariots ETA within 2-3 business days back in 1274 BC.
So are they useful? absolutely yes.
Are they deadly? damn right.
Are they fragile? most definitely.
Are they slow? hell no.
Was it a brilliant weapon? If you know what you are doing, it may just be the most incredible invention in the history of mankind. Using a wonderful combination of engineering, combat ability, the man and horse relationship/connection, and beautiful craftsmanship. This was a valuable tool and it had it's function, with different innovations or approaches on as to what or how to design them.
So does it work?
Mike´s rules!
اية دة
هو فرعون كان بيحارب لوحدة والا اية
Two horses and two people seem like a waste for one bow to be employed. Two horses and 2 men could be 2 mounted archers flinging twice as man arrows if they would just get rid of the stupid chariot.
in some depictions they show the driver joining in on the fun and shooting too as they show two bows aiming, the whole concept around a second man reminds me of a WSO fighter jets you can live with out him but you need him for high stress environment
Horses back then were too small to carry a grown man. If you do your research you will find that cavalry literally did not exist until sometime after the Bronze Age collapse. Therefore, this is the most effective way to wield a mobile archer on the battlefield. The people who invented chariots weren’t fools, if they had horses capable of carrying a man then someone would’ve asked the same question you did. Chariots were the most effective and most popular for this time.
Horses back then weren’t strong enough to carry men
@@aaronjefferson279 exactly sir.
I have seen too many people trying to prove that ancient warriors were fools who fought on Chariots. Many just trying to figure out drawbacks of chariot armies in order to prove superiority of cavalry or horseback archers.
My question is that, if cavalry is so superior, then way USA, China, etc not using them on battlefield, since last 500 years?
People must understand that there was an era of any popular technology, until getting replaced.
0 : 31
He mentions that the Javelin is from Qadesh and then accredits the Egyptians with it. Not cool
He says that a particular type of javelin is from Qadesh, and that another type of javelin -- the spinning type with the cord -- is from Egypt. He doesn't say that either culture "invented" the javelin. (And it would be a silly thing for him to say, because javelins are just throwing spears, and people have been throwing their spears since the days of the cavemen).
@@damienvalentine5043 Thanks for the clarification .. Did you get the name of the papyrus he mentioned in this video ?
@@saiidmohamed3881 Sorry, I did not!
Very disappointing not to see the horses and chariot in action. There are tons of weapon videos.
I really don’t like this guy, he spits his opinion as if they were facts
Well that’s a you problem