The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.
and just how much material went east/west in bulk I wonder?
There are accounts of truly major caravans crossing the Sahara but they used camels which were put into general usage as beasts of burden in the first millenium BC ( another dating mechanism for the OT that Arch absolutely hated to hear about!) I suspect that as with anything else, bulk shipments were made by boat whenever possible for as far as possible.
R/S's point about Rommel's tactics is valid, in the desert the southern flank was always open and he would swing around behind a position with his armored units, cut them off, and wait for the reinforcements. Meanwhile his Italian and German infantry/artillery would engage the cut off units and wait for them to surrender when they ran out of ammo. The only place it didn't work was Tobruk which could be resupplied by sea.....(boats, again!)
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
The LRDG and SAS did the same Min, their regular route to go round Rommel was the 'unpassable' quattara depression, supplies tended to be limited to the coast roads, and thus a target for the Desert Air Force.
I doubt that even a tank would manage dunes. Brit tanks failed on the beach at Dieppe as the tracks simply dug in.
In Iraq AFAIK sand barriers were removed ahead of even modern tracked vehicles.
The IDF also avoided dunes and fought mainly on the same ground as the allies had in WW2.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Further thoughts. When did the horse reach Africa?
OK, you could probably harness an Ass or Zebra to chariot but it doen't seem to have been done in antiquity, so is that reason why the early Egyptians didn't have chariots?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
You ain't going to harness my ass to a chariot. I'm retired. I don't work that hard.
I ran a search of Google images for Ancient Egyptian Tomb Art. Look at this photo of Thutmoses III.
He's in a chariot being pulled by an ox. Decidedly unkingly, eh?
Now I did find images of Tutankhamun and Ramesses II in horse-drawn chariots but Tut lived around 1320 and Ramesses II was a century later. Thutmoses III was a great military commander but he lived c 1450 BC and solidified the Egyptian empire throughout Canaan and Syria all the way to Mesopotamia. Perhaps it is just a situation where Egyptian expansion brought them into horse-breeding country and they adopted it? Consider how quickly the horse spread among the Plains Indians after the Spanish carelessly lost a couple of them in the early 16th century. A good idea is a good idea and humans are capable of recognizing one.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
The image isn't showing Min, but it would seem to support my thoughts, an Ox drawn chariot, as opposed to a cart, is unlikely to be a battle winner.
Draft animals seem to have been preceeded by ridden beasts, so if the Egyptians didn't ride horses they are unlikely to have moved to horse drawn chariots.
Wild Donkeys are as fleet as wild horses, but again seem infrequently to be seen as a draft animals.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
If not, just try Google... Put Ancient Egyptian Tomb Art in the search box and click on "Images."
If that doesn't work it must be the curse of the gods.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
You guys seem to be only considering the merits of the wheel in high-speed battle environments. I propose that the wheel, on single-axed carts and double-axed wagons, as a low-speed high-load bearing donkey that itself didn't need drink nor fodder, and could be pushed, drawn, or whatever, by whatever or whomever, had much more impact on a civilisation's development than the horse-drawn chariot did.
I agree. Unless the terrain is perfect I think chariots are damn near useless depending on the tactics envisioned. And while the Egyptians undoubtedly had ox carts they don't seem to celebrate them in their art all that much. I recall the paintings of long lines of men pulling obelisks with nary an ox to be seen.
Perhaps the oxen were too smart? Or....expensive?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
A century ago, when the milkman still delivered fresh milk to the home, his cart was often pulled by a dog.
Medieval travelling salesmen/traders pulled their own carts laden with wares from city to city, from town to town, village to village, and from hamlet to hamlet, all across Europe.
Minimalist wrote:Unless the terrain is perfect I think chariots are damn near useless depending on the tactics envisioned.
Chariots, as a weapon of war, were pretty useless anyway. They were an impressive, imposing sight for the enemy, but IRL battle situations they were not very effective, and relatively easily thwarted. As Alexander proved at Gaugamela where he destroyed Darius' army, chariots first. After which chariots were never used as battle weapons again.
I don't know if they did or didn't but something tells me that if you were rich enough to own oxen you used them and if not you pulled the plow yourself.
Of course, that's the way it always is, isn't it?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
My earlier point about east/west travel Min was meant to be in reference to the narrow fertile areas, not the delta nor trans Saharan.
I was reasoning that with such a narrow strip it is unlikely that farmers etc would need to move much in bulk, thus why construct and maintain roads for wheeled vehicles? In effect they would move stuff from their homes/fields probably only as far as the river for further transport, if required, by boat.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Minimalist wrote:Unless the terrain is perfect I think chariots are damn near useless depending on the tactics envisioned.
Chariots, as a weapon of war, were pretty useless anyway. They were an impressive, imposing sight for the enemy, but IRL battle situations they were not very effective, and relatively easily thwarted by infantry. As Alexander proved at Gaugamela where he destroyed Darius' army, chariots first. After which chariots were never used as battle weapons again.
