I know it's Italy, but that still sounds more like a Rolls or a Bentley than a Lamborghini to me :)
> massed formations with spears, which continued to be the dominant battlefield technology until the Gatling and Maxim guns in the late 01800s (CE)
is absolutely not true at all.
(Edit: See the <title>)
Feels like the futurist version of expressing your deity's name as G-d.
There's literally nothing in my comment or in the page it links to about clarifying things for historians. That would be stupid.
Following on that, the need for chariots was the impetus for some early iterations of reinventing the wheel, because the required attributes of chariot wheels were so demanding (light, strong, quick to repair) compared to earlier wheels used for traditional use cases at the time.
Darius III fought against Alexander in Gaugamela clearing and preparing the ground so he could use Chariots. But Greeks could see the tracks on the ground and just let the chariots pass on their tracks(they could not move out).
Greeks themselves could not use Chariots on their land because it is also irregular, but chariot racing were their favorite pastime. They built special circuits just for that.
It's true that there's debate about to what extent Mycenaean Greece used battle chariots in the Bronze Age, when chariots dominated the battlefield throughout Egypt and Asia Minor, and I didn't know that. We don't have the extensive written record there that we have from China, Hatti, Egypt, and the like, but we do have archaeological finds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Mycenaean_Greece#C... claims that they were used to some extent, but https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/videos/mycenaean-chario... says that in northern Greece they weren't used at all!
However, contrary to what I was saying above, it turns out that there's ample evidence of chariot use for battlefield transport—like a tiny armored personnel carrier rather than a tank—from at least Mycenaean Greece until the Celts got genocided by Caesar.
Thanks for the information!
In general the bigger part of Europe was covered by forests until the middle ages when agriculture and industry displaced them.
It was an unbeatable battlefield combination for centuries, and the accounts of Bronze Age battles—in Hatti, Egypt, India, and China—are basically accounts of battles between chariot formations.
And then... it wasn't.
To put it a different way, after its military significance faded, was it actually relegated to purely ceremonial uses or was it a popular means of transportation?
But, unlike horseback riding, chariots were never a practical means of long-distance travel. They have no suspension, they have no seats, they have no cargo space, and they don't stay level. At any time period, if you're traveling all day in a chariot, it's because the chariot is in one place and you want it to be somewhere else, perhaps for a battle or a race. If you and the driver just wanted to get there yourselves, you'd just ride the horses and leave the chariot back home in the stable.
Is that the notation historians use, or what's the reasoning?
> "It is an extraordinary discovery for the advancement of our knowledge of the ancient world,"
How exactly did this discovery advance our knowledge of the Roman civilization? We know more about the Roman civilization than about any other civilization until modern times. We know about their military organization, weapons, campaigns, wars, victories and defeats, we know about their legal framework, administration, constructions, culture, etc, etc.
What exactly did this chariot teach us? A bunch of archeologists are throwing various superlatives to make us believe their work is important (and maybe convince us that more funding is warranted). Writers have a saying "show, don't tell". These guys should listen.
But why wait a while and then dig it up? What purpose does that serve?
Unless the quoted source is himself being sensationalist, I don't think it's "clickbait" to use his summary as a headline.
The Roman Empire had good wagon technology - metal on metal bearings, lathe-turned hubs, etc.
It's pretty spectacular.
You hear about this from authors all the time who get disappointed in what the publishers choose for the book title.
It's been like this for a while. Donald Normans "the design of everyday things" was initially "the psychology of everyday things" but psychology books don't sell well and apparently such errant superficialities matter. He's a respectable academic, shouldn't be subject to such stuff, but here we are nonetheless.
I wish I could say content works without marketing and a bit of formulaic sensationalism for the title but it really doesn't perform without it. It appears to be kind of a requirement.
† Right now Amazon's nonfiction bestseller list https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Nonfiction/... has "The Psychopath" at #1, "Mindset" at #2, "Master Your Emotions" at #18, "The 7 Habits" at #21, "Girl, Stop Apologizing" at #28, "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do" at #31, "The Declutter Challenge" at #34, and "Thinking, Fast and Slow" at #50, plus a number of gray-area books; the New York Times has "Think Again" at #11. I think it's fair to say that psychology books sell a buttload.