6 ms·

As the author noted in the article, chariots are basically double the cost for the same (or slightly inferior) result. Based on their use too in Western Europe

As the author noted in the article, chariots are basically double the cost for the same (or slightly inferior) result. Based on their use too in Western Europe (especially the Celts), they seem more like a prestige item for the battlefield - akin to handing over an F-22 to some aristocrat and having them paint it bright colours and fly it around. Thankfully the latter are generally given out based on merit and capabilities these days, and not solely based on your aristocratic pedigree.

mr_toad 4y ago
> not solely based on your aristocratic pedigree These days they just name a warship or similar after you, you aren’t expected to ride around in it.
trashtester 4y ago
Still, chariots did probably retain some advantage over contemporary cavalry, which would have been useful against undiciplined infantry formations. Here is a quote from Ceasar from his invasion of Britain : "Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; ...." (Taken from the wiki artikle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#:~:text=A%20chariot%20is%20a%20type,%2C%20Russia%2C%20dated%20to%20c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#:~:text=A%20chariot%20....) "the firmness of infantry" part meant that the chariots would have an advantage over contemporary infantry in a shock role, to break up enemy formations, even from the front, similar to how cataphracts and medieval knights would do later (and even modern armor, when used as armored spearheads). But I suppose the Romans were disciplined enough to remain cohesion even when attacked by chariots, meaning that chariots could not be the force multiplier against them that they may have been against other celtic tribes.
- oblio 4y ago
  The Romans lead by said Caesar besieged the Gauls while being besieged themselves, and... won. That infantry was tough as nails. They laid siege to a Gaul settlement, by building a wall around their settlement. During the siege a larger Gaulish relief force surrounded them, so they just built an exterior wall to protect themselves against the exterior force, and waited for the inner settlement to starve and sortie. They were outnumbered but they managed to beat both the defenders in the interior settlement AND the surrounding force. We're talking about the same legions that would create a mini-camp like you'd see in Game of Thrones with the Lannisters just to camp for the night (ditches, wooden ramparts, rows of tents, night guards, the works) and a literal mini-town for longer stays, those mini-towns/mini-forts being called castrum and becoming many modern day cities. Large wooden walls, actual buildings inside the walls, their castrums were probably better looking and organized than many actual barbarian towns at the time. I don't know what drove them to all of that, but imagine how impressive everything about that was to the average peasant in the 2nd century BCE or the 3rd century CE, to pick some random time intervals.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I know. That was the battle of Alesia in Gaul, though (52BC), not in Britain. In Britain, Ceaser did not do quite as well. He was kicked out twice (in 55BC and 54BC). It wasn't until about 100 years later that Claudius' legions returned to Britain.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Btw, the Roman skills (and discipline) when it came to building marching camps is truely imporessive. I believe they picked up the idea from Pyrrhus around 279 BC. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/07/16/roman-marching-camps-an-essential-element-in-romes-empire-building/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/07/16/roman-marching-...
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > those mini-towns/mini-forts being called castrum and becoming many modern day cities. While ethymologically becoming "castle", I think.
samatman 4y ago
Aristocratic pedigree was mostly about being effective at war at the time. The Fine Blog is a great place to read all about that in fact, because he's very much not taken with the romance of historical social structures, while being honest about the fact that elites in those structures were quite a bit more capable of killing people than the peasants they dominated.
- oblio 4y ago
  It's a mix. The peasants frequently did not have direct access to steel weapons and armor (which were SUPER expensive) not training (which was also expensive, not only in terms of actual cost, but time to go through it). It's not like the nobles were innately better, though I guess some where, getting literally killer genes for generations has to help with that at some point...
  - samatman 4y ago
    It depends on the era but it wasn't uncommon for nobles to be six inches taller than their vassals. The serfs would raise the pigs and the nobles would get to eat them more than a few times a year. We saw in the 20th century what adequate protein can do for a population, many times. Nobles were often genetically distinct from the people they ruled as well, conquest being what it was, but that part isn't necessary, the surplus of protein is sufficient to explain it.
    - oblio 4y ago
      The average male height in Spain grew from 163cm to 177cm between 1910 and now, with most of the growth happening after Franco's fall. For reference the average male height in the US is 175cm. Young male Spaniards apparently have an average height of about 179cm but Spain has a super high life expectancy so the older generations are around for a really long time (ergo lower average) :-) In the past there were a ton of jokes about Southern Europeans being short. Guess what, they were just malnourished, it seems. I've seen the same thing in Romania. After the fall of communism in 1989, the average height went up (I don't know the exact numbers) and at least in developed parts of the country the average male height seems to be going towards 180cm or even taller... (rural areas tend to have shorter people, still, again, because of nutrition issues).
tokai 4y ago
Most modern royal families are still closely tied to their militaries.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Somewhat, but not as much as in the past where king was the highest ranking general, and went to battle. These days king probably has seen military service and had officer experience, but probably didn't raise that high. Probably for the better, just because your great-....-grandfather was a great general doesn't mean you will be.
  - tokai 4y ago
    Nah most Kings/Queens are commanders in chief.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      Not in the same way as the past. 400 years ago kings lead their troops to battle. These days a king is far more likely to have generals plan the way. The king says who to fight, but leaves all the details of battle plans to the generals. Dictators sometimes are military generals though, and if you squint they can be called kings/queens, though it isn't clear if they will leave leadership duties to their children.

mr_toad 4y ago

> not solely based on your aristocratic pedigree These days they just name a warship or similar after you, you aren’t expected to ride around in it.

trashtester 4y ago

Still, chariots did probably retain some advantage over contemporary cavalry, which would have been useful against undiciplined infantry formations. Here is a quote from Ceasar from his invasion of Britain : "Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; ...." (Taken from the wiki artikle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#:~:text=A%20chariot%20is%20a%20type,%2C%20Russia%2C%20dated%20to%20c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#:~:text=A%20chariot%20....) "the firmness of infantry" part meant that the chariots would have an advantage over contemporary infantry in a shock role, to break up enemy formations, even from the front, similar to how cataphracts and medieval knights would do later (and even modern armor, when used as armored spearheads). But I suppose the Romans were disciplined enough to remain cohesion even when attacked by chariots, meaning that chariots could not be the force multiplier against them that they may have been against other celtic tribes.

oblio 4y ago
The Romans lead by said Caesar besieged the Gauls while being besieged themselves, and... won. That infantry was tough as nails. They laid siege to a Gaul settlement, by building a wall around their settlement. During the siege a larger Gaulish relief force surrounded them, so they just built an exterior wall to protect themselves against the exterior force, and waited for the inner settlement to starve and sortie. They were outnumbered but they managed to beat both the defenders in the interior settlement AND the surrounding force. We're talking about the same legions that would create a mini-camp like you'd see in Game of Thrones with the Lannisters just to camp for the night (ditches, wooden ramparts, rows of tents, night guards, the works) and a literal mini-town for longer stays, those mini-towns/mini-forts being called castrum and becoming many modern day cities. Large wooden walls, actual buildings inside the walls, their castrums were probably better looking and organized than many actual barbarian towns at the time. I don't know what drove them to all of that, but imagine how impressive everything about that was to the average peasant in the 2nd century BCE or the 3rd century CE, to pick some random time intervals.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I know. That was the battle of Alesia in Gaul, though (52BC), not in Britain. In Britain, Ceaser did not do quite as well. He was kicked out twice (in 55BC and 54BC). It wasn't until about 100 years later that Claudius' legions returned to Britain.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Btw, the Roman skills (and discipline) when it came to building marching camps is truely imporessive. I believe they picked up the idea from Pyrrhus around 279 BC. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/07/16/roman-marching-camps-an-essential-element-in-romes-empire-building/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/07/16/roman-marching-...
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > those mini-towns/mini-forts being called castrum and becoming many modern day cities. While ethymologically becoming "castle", I think.

samatman 4y ago

Aristocratic pedigree was mostly about being effective at war at the time. The Fine Blog is a great place to read all about that in fact, because he's very much not taken with the romance of historical social structures, while being honest about the fact that elites in those structures were quite a bit more capable of killing people than the peasants they dominated.

oblio 4y ago
It's a mix. The peasants frequently did not have direct access to steel weapons and armor (which were SUPER expensive) not training (which was also expensive, not only in terms of actual cost, but time to go through it). It's not like the nobles were innately better, though I guess some where, getting literally killer genes for generations has to help with that at some point...
- samatman 4y ago
  It depends on the era but it wasn't uncommon for nobles to be six inches taller than their vassals. The serfs would raise the pigs and the nobles would get to eat them more than a few times a year. We saw in the 20th century what adequate protein can do for a population, many times. Nobles were often genetically distinct from the people they ruled as well, conquest being what it was, but that part isn't necessary, the surplus of protein is sufficient to explain it.
  - oblio 4y ago
    The average male height in Spain grew from 163cm to 177cm between 1910 and now, with most of the growth happening after Franco's fall. For reference the average male height in the US is 175cm. Young male Spaniards apparently have an average height of about 179cm but Spain has a super high life expectancy so the older generations are around for a really long time (ergo lower average) :-) In the past there were a ton of jokes about Southern Europeans being short. Guess what, they were just malnourished, it seems. I've seen the same thing in Romania. After the fall of communism in 1989, the average height went up (I don't know the exact numbers) and at least in developed parts of the country the average male height seems to be going towards 180cm or even taller... (rural areas tend to have shorter people, still, again, because of nutrition issues).

tokai 4y ago

Most modern royal families are still closely tied to their militaries.

bluGill 4y ago
Somewhat, but not as much as in the past where king was the highest ranking general, and went to battle. These days king probably has seen military service and had officer experience, but probably didn't raise that high. Probably for the better, just because your great-....-grandfather was a great general doesn't mean you will be.
- tokai 4y ago
  Nah most Kings/Queens are commanders in chief.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Not in the same way as the past. 400 years ago kings lead their troops to battle. These days a king is far more likely to have generals plan the way. The king says who to fight, but leaves all the details of battle plans to the generals. Dictators sometimes are military generals though, and if you squint they can be called kings/queens, though it isn't clear if they will leave leadership duties to their children.