Huge Roman mosaic uncovered in Cyprus

[aligern]

Patrick, who can excel you in building visions in the clouds...truly Ciceronian. Of course your logic rather fails when you describe the drivers of the four horse chariots having to go slowly in order to avoid having to stop and start. Why should they do this? They are grouped as four horse chariots and will reach and maintain the same speed together. If they were very heavy indeed you might have a point, but so far the evidence is that they are not. As I recall from Jed's description of the reliefs the chariot bodies are carried by one or two men. That they might have four men in the cab would add weight, but then they have two extra horses and just maybe the two extra men got out to run behind, though that is theoretical. The inertia is overcome very quickly, at least in part by the large diameter wheels which are more efficient at rolling on bare earth than small wheels because they bridge more of the ruts...just look at Chinese wheelbarrows. How in this hanging garden in the skies do you deal with Hittite chariots with three men, two horses? On your imaginative logic they should suffer from the highest inertia of all and thus be tefuced to a crawl, rather than stopping and starting.
Roy

[Mark G]

If I recall Patricks slingshot on reliefs correctly, you found one showing 2 man chariots aligned, and used it to argue that this proved Egyptian light chariots were formation charging units comparable to Assyrian four horse chariots and French cuirassier.

This despite an actual example existing of same era chariot in a museum which is clearly structurally incapable, and more importantly, showing wide axles extending far beyond the cab, which only make sense if they are designed to add stability to a high speed turn.

So we have a (radical revisionist ) modern interpretation of monumental art vs an actual artifact and basic physics.

I know which I trust.

[Patrick Waterson]

Patrick, who can excel you in building visions in the clouds...truly Ciceronian.

One man's 'visions in the clouds' is another's 'marvellous open-mindedness'.

Of course your logic rather fails when you describe the drivers of the four horse chariots having to go slowly in order to avoid having to stop and start. Why should they do this? They are grouped as four horse chariots and will reach and maintain the same speed together. If they were very heavy indeed you might have a point, but so far the evidence is that they are not. As I recall from Jed's description of the reliefs the chariot bodies are carried by one or two men. That they might have four men in the cab would add weight, but then they have two extra horses and just maybe the two extra men got out to run behind, though that is theoretical. The inertia is overcome very quickly, at least in part by the large diameter wheels which are more efficient at rolling on bare earth than small wheels because they bridge more of the ruts...just look at Chinese wheelbarrows. How in this hanging garden in the skies do you deal with Hittite chariots with three men, two horses? On your imaginative logic they should suffer from the highest inertia of all and thus be tefuced to a crawl, rather than stopping and starting.
Roy

Well ... if you try keeping vehicles in formation you will tend to find that they do not all reach and maintain the same speed together, but accrue minor differences in progress which you need to iron out while keeping an eye - and station - on the leader.  The faster you go, the more marked this tendency for individual vehicle performance to differ and the quicker you have to compensate - and with more inertia tugging you along your ability to compensate is slower.

Of course, if you are not trying to compensate but just letting every chariot go ahead at its best speed, you will accumulate velocity with the best of them, but at the expense of formation-keeping.

The basic point I have been trying to make is that those who assign 'heavy' chariots a slower operating speed may have the right idea, albeit possibly for the wrong reasons.  I think Roy is right about it not being the inherent limitations of the chariot (that accords with my 'gut feeling'), but I think we need to consider what is involved in controlling a chariot formation, and whether large vehicles in formation are going to move at the same rate as small, handy ones, in addition to possible inertia constraints on individual vehicles.

Some of us may remember Nigel Tallis' attempt to build and operate and Assyrian four-horse chariot, and the problems with the yoke breaking when the vehicle tried to turn.  (I wondered if the chariot was actually a two-pole design but Duncan demonstrated with reliefs that it was a single-pole four-yoke apparatus.)  While there may have been problems with the yoke design or (more likely) material, the episode underscores the way loads can mount up in unexpected ways when more horses are added, never mind men.

If I recall Patricks slingshot on reliefs correctly, you found one showing 2 man chariots aligned, and used it to argue that this proved Egyptian light chariots were formation charging units comparable to Assyrian four horse chariots and French cuirassier.

This despite an actual example existing of same era chariot in a museum which is clearly structurally incapable ...

Would it be possible to explain what is meant by 'structurally incapable'?  Incapable of what?

... and more importantly, showing wide axles extending far beyond the cab, which only make sense if they are designed to add stability to a high speed turn.

That point makes more sense if it stops with the word 'stability'.  One needs stability for much more than just high-speed turns.