"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
Now I'm not going to go for the usual "then he'll crap a brick when he sees tanks", but rather for the fact that chariots were in fact NOT tanks. So WTH difference is the iron supposed to have made, historically speaking?
To put it into historical context:
A) chariots were already obsolete and ceased being used in that part of the world by the time the story was written. They continued to be used until about the time of Alexander by the Persians, but even those in small numbers, with cavalry taking most of their former role.
B) the chariots used in that area would have been the Egyptian model, which was basically just a light wooden frame on wheels. They were not supposed to be a heavy tank used for a shock charge, but rather things that were fast and maneuverable archery platforms, to charge and swing around while shooting arrows and javelins at the enemy infantry. In a sense they're the chariot version of the later horse archers. So basically, especially given that the horses at the time were really ponies by modern standards, you wanted it to be lightweight if it's gonna be fast enough for that role.
Heavier chariots WERE used in Mesopotamia, but that was pretty much it.
C) even the heavier Mesopotamian version was not a tank. It provided at best some thin wooden protection in front for the crew's legs, but given that those were behind the horse(s) anyway, it didn't make a huge difference. Which is why the rest of the world went for just a frame on wheels.
Most of the protection was provided by a shield-bearer crew member with a tower shield, who would keep it toward the side facing the enemy. Basically instead of going armoured all around, it saved the weight by having a shield only in one direction. (Sort of like how a modern tank could have a very thick plate on the front of the turret, but not stop anything heavier than a heavy machinegun from the back of it.)
D) the more vulnerable element would be the horse(s) in any case. There was no protection in front of them, and they were not armoured. Again, they were going for speed, not for being a tank.
E) making a chariot out of iron seems like a very dumb idea, actually. Wood can actually be tougher than wrought iron at the same weight (they didn't have steel at the time), and is better suited to resist repetitive structural stress for extended periods. Worse yet, wrought iron isn't particularly "springy". You drive that chariot over a rock, and a wood wheel might spring back, while an iron one might just get permanently bent out of shape, unless you make it massively heavier.
F) even as plating on top of wood, I'm not sure why would you want that. They didn't exactly have anti-tank artillery at the time, and wood was plenty enough to stop an arrow. If you wanted tougher, covering it with hide was the preferred way, and really the more sensible way.
So, really, am I missing something obvious there? How was iron supposed to make those chariots unstoppable? I mean from a historical perspective, not from a religious point of view.
Now I'm not going to go for the usual "then he'll crap a brick when he sees tanks", but rather for the fact that chariots were in fact NOT tanks. So WTH difference is the iron supposed to have made, historically speaking?
To put it into historical context:
A) chariots were already obsolete and ceased being used in that part of the world by the time the story was written. They continued to be used until about the time of Alexander by the Persians, but even those in small numbers, with cavalry taking most of their former role.
B) the chariots used in that area would have been the Egyptian model, which was basically just a light wooden frame on wheels. They were not supposed to be a heavy tank used for a shock charge, but rather things that were fast and maneuverable archery platforms, to charge and swing around while shooting arrows and javelins at the enemy infantry. In a sense they're the chariot version of the later horse archers. So basically, especially given that the horses at the time were really ponies by modern standards, you wanted it to be lightweight if it's gonna be fast enough for that role.
Heavier chariots WERE used in Mesopotamia, but that was pretty much it.
C) even the heavier Mesopotamian version was not a tank. It provided at best some thin wooden protection in front for the crew's legs, but given that those were behind the horse(s) anyway, it didn't make a huge difference. Which is why the rest of the world went for just a frame on wheels.
Most of the protection was provided by a shield-bearer crew member with a tower shield, who would keep it toward the side facing the enemy. Basically instead of going armoured all around, it saved the weight by having a shield only in one direction. (Sort of like how a modern tank could have a very thick plate on the front of the turret, but not stop anything heavier than a heavy machinegun from the back of it.)
D) the more vulnerable element would be the horse(s) in any case. There was no protection in front of them, and they were not armoured. Again, they were going for speed, not for being a tank.
E) making a chariot out of iron seems like a very dumb idea, actually. Wood can actually be tougher than wrought iron at the same weight (they didn't have steel at the time), and is better suited to resist repetitive structural stress for extended periods. Worse yet, wrought iron isn't particularly "springy". You drive that chariot over a rock, and a wood wheel might spring back, while an iron one might just get permanently bent out of shape, unless you make it massively heavier.
F) even as plating on top of wood, I'm not sure why would you want that. They didn't exactly have anti-tank artillery at the time, and wood was plenty enough to stop an arrow. If you wanted tougher, covering it with hide was the preferred way, and really the more sensible way.
So, really, am I missing something obvious there? How was iron supposed to make those chariots unstoppable? I mean from a historical perspective, not from a religious point of view.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire