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.

outhouse

I made it very clear there are no such chariots, they were literary creations.


they are based on fiction, stolen ideas from previous cultures that had chariots, and then fictionally modified

Ratel

I tend to agree with most of the posters in this thread that iron chariots of any description would be impracticable, although the article Toto linked to seems to have reached the opposite conclusion.

Interestingly, looking up this passage in different versions of the Bible the Douay-Reims, which was translated from the Vulgate, renders the passage (Judges 1:19 thus:

That's interesting, because as far as I'm aware the scythed chariot was an invention of the latter Persian empire in an attempted to deal with the Greek and later Macedonian phalanx. If the "scythe" translation is the correct one it might suggest this passage is a very late composition.

Sheshbazzar

Hebrew is a language rich in idiom's, words which have a broad range of meanings, and are often used metaphorically in statements and tales with overlapping meanings. Simple sayings will have multiple layers of meaning that only those familiar with the various usages of the Hebrew idiom can possibly be aware of.
Such words and phrases, similarly to the broad applications of the English word 'well' are only determinable or translatable by the context in which they appear. And no translation of Hebrew can possibly supply all of the possible shades of meaning, or make one aware of all of the subtle word plays and hidden allusions and metaphorically couched language.
Thus anything presented as a 'translation' will almost always be deficient in conveying all of the possible senses of the original Scriptural Hebrew composition.

The goyim only 'translate' and read the surface, the superficial sense of these ancient texts. And have a tendency to take their simple surface sense entirely too literally, with all that appears to designate certain objects, animals, or items being literal, and the settings they appear within to be accounts of actual history.

A horse is a horse of course of course.... in English.
And a 'chariot' is simply chariot, a horse-drawn wheeled cart.... in English. And 'iron' is in most common English contexts simply a type of metal.

In Hebrew however, these seemingly simple things can contain and convey ideas that are not at all apparent to those who only read or comprehend the text on a superficial level. -Yes, even Hebrews and Jews are inclined to fall into this.

Thus when one learns and reads Scriptural Hebrew it is necessary to keep all of the various Scriptural usages of these words in ones mind, and read with a mind that is open to subtle nuances, suggestions and cross-linkages with the identical words and how they are applied in other contexts.
As well as holding a strong grip upon an awareness of that self-identity and that national pride that permeates and is part and parcel of all of these texts. And that 'things' are not always what they appear to be.
Stories are created as a medium to contain lessons (torah), concepts and clues, -not necessarily to be taken as being literal recountings of events.

'The horse' that is not a 'horse', and 'chariots' that are not 'chariots' nor horse drawn wheeled carts, and the 'chariots of iron' that have neither wheels nor iron, can only be perceived and comprehended by those who are willing and motivated to fully plumb these texts and to truly fathom the depths of their content.
That requires devotion, dedication and conviction, things which the shallow and the superficial will never possess.

One needs to be foolish enough to take it all seriously, while being serious enough to know that they are foolish.

Ask, and it will be given. Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

One will not find nor accept, what one has already convinced themselves, cannot be found, and does not exist.

.

Clivedurdle

Jewish surrealism? Magritte and a pipe come to mind!

Sheshbazzar

Not 'Jewish'. I do not endorse the Jewish religion, And my views are not decidedly not endorsed by the Jewish religion.
I have never so much as set foot in a Jewish synagogue.
And I have never been a smoker, nor on any occasion used any manner of illicit 'recreational' drugs.


ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew.

steve_bnk

Are you expectiong an iron clad answer?

Sheshbazzar

good one

sotto voce

It is very possible that a few pointy tips of iron, or perhaps even the mere reputation of them, were what scared faithless Judahites into refraining from giving battle.

WVIncagold

I do not know maybe fanciful fiction since Iron was stronger than bronze of the time? Since it was written by people who were probably not even there or even in the same decade maybe they just made the shit up? Like walking zombies in Jerusalem, Ninja bears, a boat carrying every living thing that had only one 18 inch hole in the top of it, and a trumpet that was able to bring down walls (even though the city was in ruin before the Israelite s inhabited the area).
The military idea of chariots was speed. It was used to flank the enemy or two disrupt the enemy lines. Iron was VERY heavy. Casting a iron chariot would have proved very hard given the technology of the time. Sand casting an iron chariot in one piece or even in several pieces would have been incredibly hard to do. But most of all it would take a team of horses to draw one with any speed. Increasing the size of the target and making it more vulnerable. Most chariots of the time were made light weight. Besides hardened leather gave great protection against the weapons of the time and did not weigh one down. The shields of the Comanches made of Buffalo hide wood and rawhide were effective as protection from firearms so why iron against spears? Mud was the enemy of the chariot (the ones who actually existed) So how effective would a 500 plus pound vehicle in sand or mud or even loose soil? Ever try and move farm equipment with wheels that is made of iron? I have, it is not easy even on the best day.
Now say they are talking about plate armor. While it would have depreciated the weight it was still much heavier and provided no more protection from weapons of the day than rawhide and hardened leather or even interwoven cane. But lets say they used plate armor of iron. Iron does not cast well thin. That is why cast iron is usually used is thick. But lets for sake of argument use it as plate armor. What was it attached to? Again it becomes a hindrance due to its weight as the most probable way of attachment was tied to a wood frame. Now we are talking a mode of transport that has no suspension and would have made heavy iron shingles bouncing on leather thongs a dubious attachments at best. Cast iron is not smooth and the imperfections would have been like a saw on the thong over very little time. It would have proven to be not worth the effort.