Talk:Chariot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Nov 2004

I wish you would revert your reversions. My regrouping wasn't by language per se, but by cultural traditions. And I split the Persian/Assyrian thing because it didn't actually say anything about Assyrian use. I think the article needs a lot of work, and I think I took it a big step in the right direction. — B.Bryant 11:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree it needs a lot of work. Grouping by "Indo-European", however is not a step in the right direction. The first spoke-wheeled chariots may have been Indo-Iranian, but certainly not Proto-Indo-European, and there is no IE "heritage" that is different from general technological transfer. Current organization is chronological:

  • Sumerian "proto chariots" (no spokes): before 2600
  • hypothesized Indo-Iranian early chariots, ca. 2000
  • China, ca 1700 (I agree that China is difficult to classify. We need more information on that, and may have to move the section further down not to break the "Ancient Near East" chronology
  • Egypt, ca. 1600
  • Hittites, Assyria ca. 1300
  • Persia, ca. 600 BC
  • Greeks, originally the section treated the time from ca. 400 BC. The mycenaean section may be separated, now and moved together with "Ancient Near East".
  • Celts ca. 500 BC-100 AD
  • Roman until ca. 500 AD
  • Tachanka

dab 11:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because we don't have very much material yet on Egypt, Assyria, Hittites, Assyria, we may lump the sections together. It was the same cultural sphere. We can take them apart again as more material accumulates. dab 11:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


All sections (except maybe the classical antiquity one) desperately need more material. Most desperately the Chinese section, and also the Indo-Iranian one. What are the individual archaeological finds? What interpretations are there? We also need material on Assyria/Babylonia, and more on the variants of chariot design in the Ancient Near East. dab 12:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Celts/Britons

Would it be more accurate to change 'Celt'to 'Briton' in the Iron Age sections? The Gauls did use them, but the use had died out by Classical times and I understand that the only evidence we have for them comes from Britain.

Mon Vier 17th March 2006

[edit] celtic

what are the references for first century use of celtic chariots in battle? Battle of Watling Street mentions no chariots. dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] map

I did a rough map of the historical spread of the chariot. clearly, I will yet refine it and provide a legend dating the various colours, but I uploaded it already so people can criticize. comments? dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Iranians?

Why you think that Aryans was 'Indo-Iranians', aryans lived in Central Asia. Now There are turks, not iranians. I think that turks is descendants of Aryans.

Well, I guess you need to reed some books, pal. --Barbatus 13:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What I essed

I don't see any mention of the essed. (What people called their chariots that, I don't recal...) Also, I don't see any mention of what I understand was standard practise for earlier chariots: transport only, not actually fighting from them (as commonly believed). Can anybody clarify? Trekphiler 18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I feel the need for horses

I've read (somewhere...) the most prestigious event at the ancient Olympics was the chariot race. Trekphiler 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

wouldn't it be extremely cool to re-introduce the chariot race as an Olympic discipline? I think even I would watch it on TV then. dab (ᛏ) 07:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] So who invented it?

Currently, the article eschews to answer the question who invented the chariot. There are two contradicting answers: the Sumerians and the Indo-Iranians. As I understand, the Sumerian chariot was a proto-chariot. It would be helpful to delineate the difference between Sumerian and Indo-European chariots in the text and to indicate why the Indo-European chariot was superior. --Ghirla -трёп- 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] equestrianism

I've deleted the following passage. Assuming that "equestrianism" means horse-riding, I thought that it was generally accepted that the earliest domesticated horses were too small to ride:

It is generally disputed whether the invention of the wheel or the domestication of the horse occurred first. This would have affected whether the use of equestrianism in warfare or chariot riding would have influenced ancient warfare first, and thus both of their places in the timeline of the development of civilization. Paul B 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitannians and Chariot Warfare

The following is the justification used for deleting the sentence: "The introduction of horse training and chariots for warfare to the Bronze Age Ancient Near East seems to be due to the Mitanni." This sentence appears at the beginning of the "Hittite" section.

  1. ca. 2000 - 1800 BC: Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero chariot burial radio-carbon dates
  2. Earliest depictions of a two-wheeled, spoked, horse-drawn chariot:
    • ca. 1906 - ca. 1830: Anatolia - karum Kanish II era cylinder seals
    • Teracotta plaque from Uruk - Believed to be contemporary or slightly later than the Anatolian seals
  3. 18th - 17th centuries BC: Numerous seals from Syria depicting the continuing evolution of the chariot - first depictions of two-man true chariots. Connections between the platform and straddle cars of previous eras to the true chariot are clear in these depictions.
  4. Late 18th century: The Anitta text mentions that the ruler of Salatiwara marched against Anitta, bringing "1,400 troops, (and) 40 teams of horses". The "teams of horses" is believed to be a reference to chariots, as that is how they were sometimes referred to.
  5. ca. 1650 - 1620: The use of chariots in warfare is textually well established by such Hittite documents as "The Seige of Ursu" and the annals of the reign of Hattusili I. The Palace Anecdotes compiled by Mursili I explicitly discuss the training of chariot warriors.
  6. ca. 1497 - 1482 BC: First appearance of Mitanni, as "Maittani", in an inscription believed to date from the reign of Thutmose I of Egypt.
  7. First half of 15th century BC - Reign of Idri-mi of Alalah, who submitted himself to the Mitannian king Parattarna. Parattarna is believed to have had two predecessors, Shuttarna, and before him Kirta, the supposed founder of the Mitannian dynasty. Kirta is tentatively placed at the beginning of the 15th century, but could be pushed back into the late 16th century. His very existence, however, is uncertain.
  8. Late(?) 15th century BC - The oldest versions of the Kikkuli of Mittanni horse-training text were composed in Middle Hittite.

If these dates are accepted, then you can see that the Hittites, and indeed all of Mesopotamia, were using chariots before the rise of Mitanni. This would mean that, while the Hittites may have acquired new chariot skills/techniques from the Mitannians, it was simply another stage in chariot evolution, not its introduction. In regard to this sentence under question, it is worth noting that there is a school of thought that the chariot developed in Mesopotamia. Even with the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero evidence, this cannot be dismissed out of hand, as the available Mesopotamian artwork depicts no sudden jump in chariot development, but rather a smooth evolution of forms.

I will resist deleting the sentence in question a second time until this discussion has had a chance to be reveiwed and commented on.

[edit] BCE

Please check the orginal edits. It is clear that BC was used as the preferred era format from when such formats first appeared in the article. Here's the first instance [1]. Accordingly, we should stick with this format, in line with policy. Thanks. 86.31.67.157 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What the original edits had is irrelevant. Nothing mandates that the "original edits" be stuck to and if an article overhaul also includes a shift from BC to BCE (or vice-versa), then thats what stays (until the next overhaul).
Completely out of line is an arbitrary conversion from BCE/CE to BC/AD for no better reason than because it offends your sensibilities.[2][3]
-- Fullstop 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely and utterly wrong in your assertions, as is Paul Barlow. Here is the edit representing article creation [4] and there's no mention of BC or BCE. Here's the first instance of either terminology being used, and it's BC [5]. BC was used until this edit [6]. In fact at this point it was being used extensively in the article, with only one reference to BCE. Then we have this modification [7] on 24th April 2007. The editor who effected it has a bad edit history and as you'll see, his changes to this article only relate to substituting BC with BCE - so he's going against Wiki policy. His edit summary is "We are suppost to use BCE not BC nowdays". This view is, of course, entirely wrong. In reverting to BC I'm restoring the original usage in this article, which should never have been changed by BernardZ. I can't change it again today for fear of a 3RR ban, so I would invite Paul Barlow to restore orginal usage at this point. Incidently, Fullstop - you highlight my edits above. Fine, but have a look in detail and you'll see that they relate to similar matters to this one. In other words I never change BCE to BC on a point of principle. I am only ever restoring previous usage. If an article started with BCE then I won't change it. Thanks. 82.14.73.161 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
>> In other words I never change BCE to BC on a point of principle.
Actually, all your conversions from BCE to BC are on a point of principle.
It is however not a useful principle since your BCE->BC conversions do not improve the articles one bit.
Instead, they are actually destructive because then other editors have to spend time (that could be more constructively spent elsewhere) dealing with them.
You've been around long enough (over two years I see), isn't it time you got with the program?
>> I am only ever restoring previous usage.
1. its absolutely irrelevant what "previous usage" was. Articles are not static.
2. since you have changed articles that were started with BCE, this new "justification" of yours is simply not believable.
-- Fullstop 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
So Mr 82.14, you change articles that were started with BCE but later changed to BE back to BCE again do you? Of course you don't. Your arguments and references to policy are pure sophistry. I'm not dedicated to BCE notation, but I know disingenuous evangelism when I see it. If an article has been established with a notation it should not be arbitrarily changed. If editorsw interested in the artcile decide to change it, then so be it. That's what Talk pages are for. Paul B 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote "If an article has been established with a notation it should not be arbitrarily changed". So what do you think about the edit referred to above where BernardZ arbitrarily changed this article to BCE without adding anything else to the article? Neither of you have answered this point. As for me changing articles from BC to BCE or vice versa. It is not my intention to change articles that started (major edit) as BCE to BC, but if I've done so in the past (and I haven't been around for two years, where do you get that from?) it was not my intention to do so. Perhaps you could indicate the article(s) you have in mind and if they haven't been changed back already then I'll do so. As for changing articles that started as BCE, back to BCE if they were subsequently changed to BC, of course I don't. The reason for this is that BCE/CE is such a stupid idea that it lowers the quality of articles - why? - because most people don't know what it's about.
Regarding this article, in the light of PB's remarks about arbitrary changes I'm now going to revert the arbitrary change made by BernardZ. I'm sure you'll agree his change was arbitrary and added nothing. This article was stable with BC almost from its creation right up to April 2007. I'm going to restore that stable usage now, so please don't revert it again. 81.107.205.182 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
anon has a point. I was significantly involved in the early buildup of this article in 2005, and my version used BC throughout. The change to BCE was slipped in only last month by BernardZ[8], not exactly a major contributor to this article, and I would have reverted then and there had I noted the change. I don't think using "BCE" somehow degrades the quality of the article itself, but the notation is still jarring to me as a cheesy, greasy, still-born attempt at USian political correctness. Once it is acceptable to use the Unix epoch (the chariot was invented roughly at UE -125G, Gs is quite a useful unit since it corresponds to roughly one human generation), I'll be all for it, but until then I see no reason not to call Dionysius' AD epoch for what it is. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Point noted. I hadn't realized that the article was BC before BernardZ's "edit" of 24 April. As such, it should quite rightly be restored.
    This rationale should have been provided in the edit comment of 1 May 2007, but wasn't. Apparently because - at that point - "Anon" hadn't yet discovered his "just restoring" motive.
  2. The rationale for a BCE->BC conversion aside, 81.107.205.x is edit warring. Which is policy violation #1. His "edits" do not actually improve the article. He's trying to force a point. Which is policy violation #2. By reverting even as the validity of his edits are being discussed on talk, while revealing a lack of good faith, is policy violation #3.
    Someone else (dab, you wanna do it?) can change from BCE->BC if he/she sees fit, but "Anon" has forfeited his right to do so.
-- Fullstop 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason I reverted Anon's actions. I don't really care which noation is used, but moving to a preferred notation for no other reason than a campaign to do so should no be tolerated. Paul B 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the changes to BCE and back again are being done like thieves in the night by hiding in the description a minor changes while doing a global change. At the time, I made a few changes. I prefer to do them one at a time rather then one hit as it as gives people a better chance to access the changes. I still think that BC->BCE change is in accordance with the wikipedia policy but I am not going to lose any sleep about it BernardZ 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not. I am not really losing sleep over this myself, but the BC vs. BCE debate is one of the unresolved issues of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. And likely will remain so, no harm done, WP has rather more severe issues. We have an "era armistice" in effect. I am not pedantically insistent on this, but the present debate is a good example of what will happen when it is broken: time wasted in pointless debate. There is no simple solution. The ideological division is twofold. It appears that in the USA, "BCE" is secular and "BC" is 'evangelical'. But at the same time, in the UK, "BC" is scholarly style, while "BCE" is a new-fangled Americanism. As a result, the issue should be treated exactly like other British vs. American English differences. One "solution" that is really cutting the baby in half is the "BC/BCE" or "BC(E)" I saw used on Jesus. That's about as sensible as spelling "favo(u)r" or "favour/favor". It disfigures the text with petty issues completely unrelated to the matter under discussion. dab (𒁳) 07:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Right on dab (though I disagree that it has geographic/temporal boundaries). Incidentally, I have filed a checkuser for anon at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jguk. That unfortunately implies more time and energy expended/to be expended. Jguk's arb cases may hopefully also serve as a head's up for those who insist that any blanket era notation change (as we have been discussing here) has any justification. It doesn't. Period.
-- Fullstop 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You thought I was jguk. I'm not. 82.20.29.182 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's essentially a UK/USA issue. It is mostly Jewish editors who feel strongly about the use of BCE, and it is standard on most Judaism-related articles. The Jesus article is obviously related to Judaism, but also - equally obviously - to Christianity. There has been near-permanent warfare over this at the Jesus article, hence the unhappy compromise. The BCE notation is anlso typically preferred on other articles related to non-Christian religions. Paul B 08:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess the Jesus article is the one special case where I can live with a "AD/CE" notation, because there the era question is intricately tied up with the article subject. Having monstrosities like "BCE/BC" in articles like "chariot" otoh is clearly absurd. Now, with major ;oP smileys and <xml:irony> tags, it seems indeed that this whole "BCE" red herring is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy because not even the Muslims (who usually are quite good at working up steam over ridiculous trifles) have a problem with it. Sheesh. I really opt for ab urbe condita, olympiads, or, why not!, the Unix epoch. dab (𒁳) 09:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the <xml:irony> tag is still open...
I'm particularly partial to the ab urbe condita idea because Roman numerals are so handy.
"The earliest spoke-wheeled chariots date to ca. A.u.c MCCXLVII and their usage peaked around A.u.c DXLVII."
Fortunately, AC dates are written the same way as AD dates. No anachronistic '-' sign necessary since ab and ante both begin with 'A'.
I prefer the WorldCup epoch to the olympiads scheme. Everyone (well, everyone that counts) knows we are now in the first year of the third Italiade. And 'WC' has a nice ring to it.
The Unix epoch is no good. It ends in 2034, which is still four years from the end of the world.
-- Fullstop 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
</xml:irony>
surely you must have heard of 64 bit integers? I, for one, will not mind dodging the climate collapse and find myself back in the golden age of Art Nouveau (by 2051=1914 I'll be rather too old to be drafted, too:) dab (𒁳) 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm only 2 bit myself. So, Art Nouveau is Art Noire for me. Which is probably a good thing because by 2051 I'll (hopefully) be staring at the lid of a very dark box. -- Fullstop 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
ps: really, truly, utterly off topic: the Unix epoch begins in 1970. Unless of course, you use a Mac.

[edit] Excuse for miscellaneous changes

I have made a number of edits to clarify the text without intentionally altering any facts in the original article. In particular, the introduction needed a fuller summary of the article's main points. Other changes, none of much substance, are mostly in the sections "Early wheeled vehicles in Sumer", "Central Europe and the British Isles" and "Greece". I have used scattered pieces from several standard encyclopedia sources; if you question any, please say so here and I'll supply the reference. Fbarw (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)