
Why They Lost The Wheel (1973) - antman
https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197303/why.they.lost.the.wheel.htm
======
dalke
The author also wrote the book "The Camel and the Wheel", also in the 1970s.
There's a 2010 interview of him at [http://bwog.com/2010/10/09/professor-
interviews-just-camels-...](http://bwog.com/2010/10/09/professor-interviews-
just-camels-with-richard-bulliet/) .

My first thought on reading the link concerned the iron chariots mentioned in
the Bible ("And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of
the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because
they had chariots of iron."; Judges 1:19.) I figured I was missing something
when I saw he was a history professor. The interview clarifies it further in
that he knew the same reference, which got him to wonder why the word "wheel"
wasn't in medieval Arabic.

~~~
rom16384
Actually regarding Judah's defeat from the inhabitants with the iron chariots,
it was because they were afraid of them and not trusting God (see Judges
2:1-3). They did defeat them latter on (Judges 4:3,15)

~~~
dalke
I'm not sure your point with "Actually"? They were still chariots, with
wheels.

I could have quoted Exodus 14:7 - "And he took six hundred chosen chariots,
and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them." That's
the other one which which comes quickly to mind. (Well, the other topic; there
are several verses which mention those Egyptian chariots.) But the qualifier
"chariots _of iron_ " gives an idea that they've been around long enough to
need a qualifier. (Chariots are from the Bronze Age.)

FWIW, there are 60 references to chariots in the Bible, of which three use
"iron".

~~~
cafard
The curious thing about chariot warfare is that nobody seems to have a very
clear idea of the tactics. The book _The Coming of the Greeks_ offers a
picture of the spread of Indo-European languages through a military elite that
has mastered chariot tactics, but can't say what they were or how they
declined. Homer is pretty shaky on chariot warfare. And when Darius tried to
bring back chariots with scythed wheels to defeat Alexander, it just didn't
work.

~~~
dalke
I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mis...](http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.html)
has more details. "Although intermittently appearing on the battle field for
six hundred years, the scythed chariot was curiously ineffectual. Their use by
the Seleucid king Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, can serve
as an example. ... Antiochus had expected that they would throw the enemy into
confusion, but for Livy it all was a "silly show." Placed in front, the horses
were terrified by the shouts and missiles directed at them and bolted wildly,
without bit or bridle."

------
tsomctl
For anyone that found this interesting, the website is a magazine focused on
the Arab world. They have over 50 years of articles similar to this on their
site. Interestingly, it is completely payed for by Aramco, the oil company.

~~~
agumonkey
Old and from a different culture => very enjoyable. I'm happy @antman posted
that article today.

------
dredmorbius
The mention of asphalt roads in pioneer-era America was rather anachronistic.
Tarmac (or tarmacadam), what much of the world calls asphalt, wasn't created
until 1901 (though earlier variants date to 1834). It's a combination of
_macadam_ , or crushed gravel, and _tar_ \-- bitumen, or the heaviest
components of oil (also what's principally present in the Canadian tar sands).
Though yes, asphalt _was_ used locally as early as the 6th century BC.

Tarmac is also a _topping material_ for roads. It stabilizes crushed gravel,
but doesn't of and by itself provide much in the way of load-bearing
capability. For that, substantial earthworks are required. Roman roads
required earth removal, a layer of land, gravel and concrete, crushed stone
and concrete, and finally a topped layer of dressed cobblestones, as well as
drains to either side.

[http://spqrlive.com/communities/8/004/007/457/098/images/452...](http://spqrlive.com/communities/8/004/007/457/098/images/4529891515_525x272.jpg)
[http://spqrlive.com/roads/4536983176](http://spqrlive.com/roads/4536983176)

While that makes for an excellent load-bearing surface, it's a bit rough for
high-speed travel. That's where tarmac comes in.

For wagon trains, occasional travel over largely unimproved dirt roads was
possible, but _any_ amount of water would result in mud, with wheels and
wagons sinking into it. Wheel ruts from pioneer crossings from 1840-1869 are
still visible today, 150 years later:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Trail_Ruts_(Guernsey,_W...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Trail_Ruts_\(Guernsey,_Wyoming\))

This bit on the first macadam road in the U.S. might be interesting:

[http://web.en.rmutt.ac.th/highway/eng-
macadam.html](http://web.en.rmutt.ac.th/highway/eng-macadam.html)

 _The first macadam surface in the United States was laid on the "Boonsborough
Turnpike Road" between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland. By 1822, this
section was the last unimproved gap in the great road leading from Baltimore
on the Chesapeake Bay to Wheeling on the Ohio River. Stagecoaches using the
road in winter needed 5 to 7 hours of travel to cover 10 miles._

It also details some of the intermediate phases between macadam and full
asphalt concrete roadbeds.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac)

------
lmm
> roads are built for wheels and not vice versa. Their decline paralleled that
> of the wheel; it did not cause it.

Is this true? I remember being told that the Roman roads were built for the
legions to march on (even people on foot are faster on a road than a dirt
track), and that it was only this established road network that made wheeled
transport viable.

------
joe_coin
"There is one Roman relief showing a camel chariot race, but it is hard to
believe that it was not intended as comic relief."

Hey Gaius, did you hear the one about the camel pulling a chariot?

And nice word play by the author of the article.

------
jkot
Africa province (countries around todays Libya) had very different climate in
Roman times. There was no need for camels back than.

------
wisdomdata
unfortunately (for Australia at least) the camel is in no danger of
disappearing, it is a very serious pest of the inland desert areas. The number
of camels which range through inland arid areas is now around the 1 million
mark. They are very destructive too, being able to reach much higher and eat
tougher plants than any other native animals.

~~~
gweinberg
I would seem to me it should be pretty easy to shoot them and eat them.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
[http://www.camelsaust.com.au/](http://www.camelsaust.com.au/)

There is indeed an industry for this, but it's no where near as large as it
would need to be to eliminate a significant amount of the population.

You also have the problem that the population is spread over such a large
area.

------
jalayir
Camel carts/wagons actually do exist ([http://www.nomadderwhere.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/07/dsc_...](http://www.nomadderwhere.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/07/dsc_0411.jpg)) and are quite popular in India and
Pakistan. In fact, I would say that such is the primary way of using a camel
as a load-bearing animal in this region. I think the big difference is, in the
Middle East, the caravans had to travel very long distances (for instance,
Mecca to Constantinople was a profitable route) over very _diverse_ desert
terrain, some of which is probably very unsuitable for carts (mountain passes,
loose sand).

------
lectrick
You should really read the article but...

tl;dr It was 20% cheaper to just have a camel, than to also attach a wheeled
cart to it, due to the absence of trees. So the camel beat the wheel for
economic reasons alone.

------
hga
Jerry Pournelle frequently comments that the invention of the horse collar
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar))
was one of the most consequential ones in history. Here we have a similar move
from oxen to something more efficient.

~~~
scentoni
That reminds me that Egyptians and Romans rode in chariots rather than on
horseback because they didn't have stirrups:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup)

~~~
rpenm
The Roman legions used saddled cavalry. Chariots were only really used for
racing. But yes, Romans rode without stirrups.

