4 ms·
You're absolutely right. I think they are restricting their definition to the closest thing to today's cars: 4-wheeled, enclosed passenger carriages. Not quite
by bradley13 3y ago
You're absolutely right. I think they are restricting their definition to the closest thing to today's cars: 4-wheeled, enclosed passenger carriages. Not quite fair, as two-wheeled carts, while less luxurious, certainly existed.
- bluGill 3y agoIn the 1500s wagon suspension technology wasn't very good. Humans would much prefer to walk if they could since riding would be very rough on the body. There wasn't really any disadvantage - humans can walk at least as far in a day as a horse (or more likely ox in 1500). Even rich people would walk, the horse would be for heavy things that you carry with you (ie a knight armor - a knight would then put the armor and and ride into battle). There are exceptions to the above where people did ride in wagons. However they were rare as for most people walking was good. Many of the exceptions where to show off: I'm rich enough to have a wagon so I'm going to ride in it when you are looking (and if I think nobody is I'm getting out to walk).
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y agoAnyone serious about comfort would use a litter ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle) )
- bluGill 3y agoEven then it is more about showing off your wealth than comfort. You can afford several slaves just to carry you around. Probably more comfortable than walking (unlike a wagon), but not by much.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y agoC'mon, you're a Roman senator's wife, it's raining, you need to get to the Vestals or whatever ... of course you're not hoofing it.
- Animats 3y agoA 4-wheeled horse-drawn fully enclosed carriage with a suspension is either a limo or a bus. You need four horses to get above walking speed. It's either an expensive luxury or mass transportation.