Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WVIncagold · 10-03-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

Is the a thread about chariot construction techniques?

A few years ago I was giving a demonstration of woodworking with hand tools (cabinet building with no power tools) and a man stopped to chat. He had spent the summer in Syria on some kind of Archeo-tourist excursion where regular people get to go help real archaeologists dig up an ancient city. They found parts of a Sumerian chariot basket, but no wheel parts. Apparently, there was a lot of speculation about wheel construction. If spoked wheels were used, some sort of tire would be needed to constrain the many small wooden parts. Iron and bronze were possible materials, but none have ever been found.

I suggested leather. My archeo-tourist said that was considered, but they didn't think it would last very long. I pointed out, a chariot is a military vehicle. It only needs to last as long as the battle and can be refitted as often as needed. It seems none of the amateur archaeologists considered the economics of military spending.

In any case, no sensible chariot builder would be concerned with armor. The chief requirement is a light weight vehicle which can hold two men(driver and archer), be stable over rough ground at speeds around 10 to 20 mph(estimates of actual speeds vary) and most of all, be able to withstand the stresses of sharp turns. Iron and brass hardware could be used, but in the smallest quantities possible.

Armor for the passengers is pointless when the main target is going to be the horse.

I tend to agree with you but to be frank a wood wheel would last the length of battle I would think as long as it was made of hardwood, I mean there are plenty examples of carts and other forms of transportation we can extrapolate those would, as today, been derived from military application. So I like your idea of a wheel strapped in boiled leather over say bronze or iron. Its practical, cheap and easily made on the battle field (very important for military applications).

sotto voce · 10-03-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I am no historian or biblical scholar. However, may I preface with the reason chariots existed at all was because of the size of horses during that time period. They were small, much smaller than today's horses and unable to carry men on their backs. that's why the chariot became prevalent as a means of war. So just adding this to the fray of the premise of weight in dealing with iron chariots. A fully iron (not steel but iron) would be incredibly heavy. Iron is much heaver than steel in order to achieve the same strength. most people think of iron they actually think of today's steel. Think cast iron is more probable such as a cast iron stove. Casting Iron was around at then end of the bronze age but very very expensive and quality was poor. The iron would have cracked on the stress a chariot would experience. Few would last a couple of expeditions without numerous bronze brazing to hold them together. Also plates would be super heavy and would mire any chariot in the sand or loose material and would be utterly useless in mud. As with everything in the bible its nothing more than myth all around. They would have been useless in a military context as pointed out the horses and men would be exposed to the faster moving war chariots or even foot archers.

So how does one explain why people invented impossible chariots in order to show that their deity was a failure? Or was this bit written by their enemies?

I do not know

Then what the hell are you doing, talking with such absurd certainty about what must be either invention or pure mischief?

Would it not be a sensible thing to get some idea? We have the view before us, possibly inane, ignorant and juvenile, that the failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes, that has of course, in true skeptical tradition, been totally unevidenced, is 'famous'. So is there no responsibility to answer this question?

Ratel · 10-03-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I do not know

Then what the hell are you doing, talking with such absurd certainty about what must be either invention or pure mischief?

Would it not be a sensible thing to get some idea? We have the view before us, possibly inane, ignorant and juvenile, that the failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes, that has of course, in true skeptical tradition, been totally unevidenced, is 'famous'. So is there no responsibility to answer this question?

We would have to know what the understanding of the author was at the time of the writing. It seems likely that Yahweh was not at that time understood to be an all-powerful transcendant being but rather a character similar to Marduk or Zeus. It is also possible that the presence of Yahweh was felt as an ecstatic fervor in battle, so it would be entirely conceivable that persons in this state felt able to overwhelm similarly equipped enemies but would have balked at a technologically superior foe.

You haven't offered what you think is the correct exegesis of this passage, please feel free to do so.

outhouse · 10-03-2012, 10:24 PM

Quote:

We would have to know what the understanding of the author was at the time of the writing.

we do

but you also have to be 10 steps ahead of that, you also have to realize who, what, when, and why, and where, the redactions took place.

Quote:

. It seems likely that Yahweh was not at that time understood to be an all-powerful transcendant being but rather a character similar to Marduk or Zeus.

First of all, by the time your passages were written were talking about a governement with king Josiah that demanded explicit yahwist traditions, and a bible redacted to yahwism and monotheism.

Yahweh took on all Els attributes including his wife Asherah by soem tribes before 800 BC

Israelites were multicultural and that is only a partial view of their polytheistic past.

Part of the problem is after yahweh took on Els attributes, the bible was redacted so all Els attributes and yahwehs attrubutes were labeled as Elohim which fits many lables.

polytheism/henotheism lasted by some accounts to 200 BC

marduk had influences though, ill give you that.

Quote:

correct exegesis

fiction/mythology

if you want a correct answer, read the whole wiki link

sotto voce · 10-04-2012, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I do not know

Then what the hell are you doing, talking with such absurd certainty about what must be either invention or pure mischief?

Would it not be a sensible thing to get some idea? We have the view before us, possibly inane, ignorant and juvenile, that the failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes, that has of course, in true skeptical tradition, been totally unevidenced, is 'famous'. So is there no responsibility to answer this question?

We would have to know what the understanding of the author was at the time of the writing.

No, we wouldn't. We would just need to have the sense and the courtesy to read what Christians, or purported Christians, have made of this for five hundred years, since the Bible was made available to people whose interest in it was scholarly and even honourable.

Alternatively, we could read all of this thread.

steve_bnk · 10-04-2012, 05:59 AM

Making chariots completly out of iron in large numbers was probably beyond their technolgy capacity.

Forging and working axles and spokes would be a challenge. I could see reinforcing wooden axles with iron bars.

Lacking bearings and reklying on a grease for the wheels, added weight of iran would be a problem.

Arrows and spears of the time would have a hard time penetratibg a wooden front on a chariot, or so I imagine.

WVIncagold · 10-04-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I do not know

Then what the hell are you doing, talking with such absurd certainty about what must be either invention or pure mischief?

Would it not be a sensible thing to get some idea? We have the view before us, possibly inane, ignorant and juvenile, that the failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes, that has of course, in true skeptical tradition, been totally unevidenced, is 'famous'. So is there no responsibility to answer this question?

No that is not the OP but A plus effort trying to derail and take umbrage when it isn't even the topic. You are welcome to start your own topic on your "puny god" inability to do anything against iron chariots. this is about the plausibility of Iron chariots only as the OP asked. So I am discussing the military application as well as real life plausibility of those chariots existence. Its not MY fault your bible says your god is a puny god and cannot overcome iron chariots. Basically to defeat Jesus the magic zombie all one needs is one tank which would be equivalent to Hulk using Loki as a rag doll. Hey its your religion dude I do not accept the whole magic man who lives on a cloud above me concept. Maybe you should work within your religion to remove it from the cannon since you take umbrage against its existence. So unless you have anything to offer on chariot construction or military application of said chariots I suggest you peddle your puny god worship elsewhere. Nuf said.

sotto voce · 10-04-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I do not know

Then what the hell are you doing, talking with such absurd certainty about what must be either invention or pure mischief?

Would it not be a sensible thing to get some idea? We have the view before us, possibly inane, ignorant and juvenile, that the failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes, that has of course, in true skeptical tradition, been totally unevidenced, is 'famous'. So is there no responsibility to answer this question?

No that is not the OP

On the contrary. Post #9 proposes that iron chariots were an impossibility. The OP states that Jdg 1:19 records a failure of Israel's deity. So the outstanding question is this. Why would Israel invent a mythical chariot in order to demonstrate that Israel's own deity failed Israel?

It seems unlikely that Israel would do that. The most obvious alternative view is that enemies of Israel were somehow ingenious enough to a 'record' a non-event in Israel's Scripture; yet also with great incompetence, strangely unaware that chariots made of iron were impossible. Also, unlikely.

Something, somewhere, does not add up. A contradiction, no less. Perhaps someone who actually is a serious historian or biblical scholar can enlighten?

Bronzeage · 10-04-2012, 10:05 AM

It should be pointed out, in the 1995 Movie, "Fists of Iron," the actor Michael Worth did not have fists of iron and never wore any ferrous metal gloves during the production. This did not seem to detract from the verisimilitude of the film.

Sometimes when the term "iron" is used, it does not really mean iron.

WVIncagold · 10-04-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

No that is not the OP

On the contrary. Post #9 proposes that iron chariots were an impossibility. The OP states that Jdg 1:19 records a failure of Israel's deity. So the outstanding question is this. Why would Israel invent a mythical chariot in order to demonstrate that Israel's own deity failed Israel?

It seems unlikely that Israel would do that. The most obvious alternative view is that enemies of Israel were somehow ingenious enough to a 'record' a non-event in Israel's Scripture; yet also with great incompetence, strangely unaware that chariots made of iron were impossible. Also, unlikely.

Something, somewhere, does not add up. A contradiction, no less. Perhaps someone who actually is a serious historian or biblical scholar can enlighten?

I do not appreciate people putting words in my mouth, But your opinion is vacuous vapid and completely without merit and I will use your justification you used against me. Because I say so.

The only person I have discussed this nonsense of your idiotic god is with you because YOU brought it into the fray. You are welcome to go start a thread about that subject. I am Jesus the magic caterer has lots of biblical excuse-isms as to this failure however this is about the actual chariots and the construction and probability. Since you seam incapable of reading the very first fucking sentence of the OP states:

Quote:

This is not about the famous failure of Yahweh to prevail against the Canaanite tribes whose maryannu drove iron chariots chronicled for us in Judges,

I highlighted the area you seam incapable to read.

So take your babel talk elsewhere. Since I was a class 4 model maker for the Air Force and a master machinist and model maker and welder I am uniquely qualified to discuss the manufacture and makeup of construction of military hardware. past and present.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2012, 05:59 AM	#26
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Making chariots completly out of iron in large numbers was probably beyond their technolgy capacity. Forging and working axles and spokes would be a challenge. I could see reinforcing wooden axles with iron bars. Lacking bearings and reklying on a grease for the wheels, added weight of iran would be a problem. Arrows and spears of the time would have a hard time penetratibg a wooden front on a chariot, or so I imagine.

10-04-2012, 10:05 AM	#29
Bronzeage Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Deep South, USA Posts: 7,568	It should be pointed out, in the 1995 Movie, "Fists of Iron," the actor Michael Worth did not have fists of iron and never wore any ferrous metal gloves during the production. This did not seem to detract from the verisimilitude of the film. Sometimes when the term "iron" is used, it does not really mean iron.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.