Bow Makers as Chariot Wheelrights: Del the Cat?

Hi,
I'm honoured to be addressed in your thread title _{<waves in theatrical manner>}
Yes, I'd have thought similar techniques would work nicely.
I think most wheels were made in sections from solid timber held together with an iron hoop.
BUT...thin sections, maybe steam bent into loops then glued up as a series of concentric hoops to stagger the joints could be incredibly light and strong. Dunno if they ever did it like that?
I'm not sure how much inter-trade skill exchange took place...did the coopers jealously guard their secrets from the wheelrights and bowyers.

Egypt is probably where composite bows and charriots would have met as the Egyptians imported composite bows from Syria and Asia minor ( I think their own bows were wood) but I'd have thought heat bending of timber was commonplace?
Del

It is the horse(equid, could have been onager, wild ass whatever) skills that are critical. A chariot without ponies is pointless, but the animals of that time were too small and spindly to carry a man at speed. If they had been strong enough, why build chariots. Sitting on the damn animal is clearly easier.

Horse skills among the Native Americans, with no history of horsemanship and no training, put them in the category of the best light cavalry in the world, when light cavalry really mattered. We know they didn't invent the chariot, but could they have built one with their pre Columbus technology. It is clear they could acquire better animal skills then the europeans very rapidly.

My idea is that the city types stole the idea, but lacking the manual dexterity of the nomadic types, developed the bent wood iron rim wheel, but the concept was developed on the steppes. The first known chariots appeared in Iraq, indeed there was a model of a straddlecar, the same concept as my saddlechariot, from 2,800 BC but massively heavy. But boat building history doesn't include much on the kayak,

By looking on the steppes, you have the nomads, the horses and the first chariots appearing not far away, it pust everything in one place ish.

For a composite bow, what length of wood do you need? Not what's best, but actually need.

Simon

I think the wood was often two bits spliced together, the wood is pretty much just there to stick the horn and sinew onto and to add a bit of stability, and to space the two working materials apart...the wood doesn't add power.
So to answer the Q A pice of timber say 3' long would provide plenty for a pair of limbs to be spliced together I'd guess.
I've actually cut a billet of Maple for someone for that very purpose 45" long to allow plenty for 2 limbs and to avoid the inevitable knots.

Hopefully I'll be making one eventually, gotta do a successful sinew backed one first.

Del

This may or may not be off topic so I'll leave that conclusion to later posters.

I remember seeing a TV report (Discovery?) that chariots came into existence as weapons of war. They were faster than the heavy carts used for hauling cargo. Each chariot could take an additional two to four foot soldiers from one field to another permitting rapid redeployment of forces. I seem to remember that this report included that the new chariot design (Israelites?) included a leather based basket weave support for the chariot floor. This meant that the driver and occupant now had a suspension system that smoothed the ride down. This permitted archers ridding in the chariot to reasonably accurately shoot from a speeding platform. This improvement permitted the Israelites to stop a Persian invasion.

Remember the use of chariots were at a time that stirrups had yet to be invented. So ridding a horse required holding on in some fashion with your hands. Wielding a weapon on horseback was not possible until stirrups became known.

I saw a bit on discovery channel and the chariot worked fine with one and broke with two people up. I made a two man version of mine, a cut and shut job 10lbs heavier, 8" wider, and even driven solo, Henry, the pony, hated it. The clamcleats I used to take the pull from the traces, failed in under an hour, but they were pretty old so I replaced them. They lasted just over an hour. The standard vehicle where I am over the centre of effort, (I think that is the term) has never broken a clamcleat in 8 years.

The Israelites appear very little in chariot history. Egyptian examples are the best preserved and lightest, and were driven solo by archers, hunting lions, so you don't need drivers or springs. Nobody puts suspension on skis. You use your knees, ankles hips etc.

With one man the chariot is brilliant, easy and simple, two up, it is a bad unsprung cart. I know I drive them. The research has mostly been done by carriage drivers who think they have to have a servant along. The level of actual research on chariots is minimal. I don't do research, I have built over 100 and I drive them regularly.

The stirrup theory doesn't answer how native americans coped perfectly well with bows and arrows, tomahawks, spears and rifles all without stirrups. It is one of those urban myths like the width of the railway being down to roman chariots. Sorry, no evidence.

I bow to your actual, practical knowledge. I am also glad to see that you also remember the discovery channel report on chariots. So I'm not completely off the mark.

It may be a myth that the stirrup permitted mounted use of a weapon. But I do doubt that native Americans coped perfectly with out stirrups. Certainly they rode better without stirrups than I could with stirrups. Probably the native American's' stirrup-less riding skills surprised many a stirrup saddled pale face. But flawlessly identical agility with or without stirrups for all native American's, I think not. But that's just might be my ego rising.

Redfred, here is some stuff on tilting and the use of stirrups. It comes from an article on fencing from ghorseback.

Have a look at some of the bridle less dressage pages and you start seeing what you can do without equipment. Anyway here is the stirrup stuff on jousting, there is lots more on the site.

Stirrups are perhaps best employed in assisting the rider to "rise" in his seat and so isolate the movement of his body from that of his horse. Such isolation is most helpful in firing projectile weapons like bows. This is likely the reason why the stirrups originated in the great horse cultures of the east, which are known as excellent mounted archers.

Additionally, the stirrups can be useful before the impact, to brace the rider more firmly against the cantle. The moment of impact however, tends to pull the rider's feet up and back - or otherwise "out" of the stirrups.

Useful, yes. But are they "necessary" for the shock of the charge with couched lance? Not especially. To test the effect of the stirrups, one has only to remove them from the saddle and try the pass without them. I have accomplished many successful passes at the quintain without stirrups, with no appreciative loss in the force of impact.

The stirrups are extremely useful for lateral support, and "standing" in the hand to hand fighting of a melee likely to follow a charge. It is especially difficult to pull a man off a horse if he has his feet firmly planted in the stirrups. Stirrups then allow the horseman to exploit the success of the charge, once a lance is broken or discarded in the chest of an unfortunate foe.

Hope this helps

Simon

My applogies.

My snarky previous reply was being typed as you were posting your appology. I do accept your appology. Will you kindly accept mine?

I do appreciate your reference to ghorseback's article on jousting. Clearly the cantle is what increases the amount of shock force available from a mounted rider using a lance. I can only claim that my inferred reference to archers meant that I was talking about the aid of stirrups to the use of missle weaponry.

At this point though I should emphasize that I have no equestrian skills. I'm one of the many individuals that occaisionally adds a truly naive comment to an amusing topic. That being said...

I do like your implied concept that the true origin of a chariot was the sheer pleasure of speed from swift horse power instead of the slow but powerful oxen power. Presumably some ancient war machine engineer borrowed the chariot concept from some speed demons. But how does one support your idea?

No offense to your delightful pony but I'm actually pleased that he disliked your larger chariot that could handle two people. This may actually support your claim. For clearly many an ancient chariot depiction show multiple passengers in a chariot (driver and archer, or driver and lancer.) Compare the basic design of your pleasure chariot with one of the latter Greek war wagons. (I think the Greeks were one of the last tribes that successfully used the chariot in war.) Next compare an earlier tribe's chariot, say an Egyptian or Persian. Then on to the Asyrians and onto the ancient Indians. If a regression analysis of chariot design approches the fundamentals of your speed wagon design, then your idea maybe sound. A true tell tale sign though would be something that your single pony preferred to have in the design that showed little to no merit when being drawn by multiple horses. A vestigular trait that continues to be passed down can show the true origins.

Apologies accepted now and for any future misunderstandings. It is so easy to brush something away because for the last 8 years one has been thinking about it, and one can still be wrong.

As a non horseman you have identified the only design feature that really matters. Does the pony like it? I am sure car designers worry if the engine sounds stressed, so horse drawn vehicle designers should do the same. The trouble is tradition. I have a book that says if the harness causes rubs, sores or galls, rubbing urine on the affected part is a good treatment. This was written in 1990. OK Madam your horse has an open bleeding sore because of my design. I suggest you piss on it. Great marketing.

Back to chariots. It isn't the weight of the people that is critical. OK it is relevant. But if I stand on the axle in the centre, at the point of balance, and the right wheel hits a bump, the wheel goes up, and I flex at the ankle and knee. The wheel goes back and I pivot ankle knee hip and on up as the jolt gets more serious. If I am off centre, my 220lbs moves back and forwards relative to the pony. I go up and down.

A one man unsprung vehicle works if the man is standing. You cannot get two people to work in such perfect harmony. So in straight engineering terms, one man makes sense. Anyway, who wants to ride a scrambler motorcycle two up.

For warfare, an archer who could move for a mile at 15 mph up hill and arrive at a vantage point with 100 arrows, not out of breath, would be an asset. Think mobile artillery. He tells the pony to stand. Cowboys do it. He shoots everyone he can see from his commanding height, until they look like they are in range. He gets back on his chariot and retreats to safety.

Firing from a moving platform at moving targets was something the army main battle tanks only got sorted in the last 20 years. It wouldn't have been a minimum requirement in 2000BC. If you have a driver, you can't shoot that side of the vehicle, so any minimal advantage disappears. Anyway, plenty of horsemen learn to control their animal by voice. I shout at Henry, he does what he likes, but to be honest if I pull the reins, he does the same.

And look at the engineering involved

which wood and how thick for the axle? What is the load on those hubs?

This is meant to be 1,000 to 500 BC. I can draw the pictures but off road and with no suspension, how long would that last.

With a light chariot, on bad terrain, you get off and walk and let it bounce over the bumps. I get off to take the load off the pony, 40x40mm stainless 2mm wall box shouldn't break, and kite buggy wheels are pretty tough. But to give the pony an easy ride, I give the chariot an easy ride, and the early ones would have needed it. The one shown would need real engineering. Not saying it can't be done, but that is a city solution, the dog sled, kayak, kite approach is what I am looking at.

As regards help, it is bouncing ideas at engineers to see where the engineering problems, are, and what the strengths and weaknesses of traditional techniques are.

Simon

Nice post...

Don't you hate so called 'research' by people who can't actually do it themselves, and so assume no-one else could.
My Brother was a taxidermist and he was appoplectic when he saw some idiot on TV saying stoneage man would take days to skin a deer with stone tools.....
Flaked tools actually cut better than steel and the stone age man would be expert, because he'd actually done it.
There is a lot of it about.

I saw one where these imbeciles rigged up an overhead wire to slide out and examine some timbers in a muddy estuary, it took 'em ages. (Having first got dangerously stuck when they initially tried to go out in waders!)
Any wildfowler could have given them a pair of duck boards to strap to their boots and they could have walked out in minutes!
Del

Yes classic "expert" behaviour. The chariot that I saw on TV was steamed wood but in an Iraqui, Iranian, bentwood furniture factory. Since they couldn't get the wheels to work without, they heat shrank steel rims on, so it was pretty much a bodge of what they could get local guys to build.

It looked like a chariot because they dressed it up to match expectations. My vehicle is a chariot, becuase it is a solution to the problem of a large adult with an animal too small to carry him. In Sumeria they were called charioteers, in England, fathers of small horsey girls.

I have never tried to re enact, and when you build a bow, you are learning the problems facing bowyers for millennia, because you are trying to do the same thing. And yes, sharp stones are very sharp, and guys who live an work with mud learn to cope. But they aren't experts so they don't count.

Simon

I have built over 100 and I drive them regularly.

Thats quite an army. Do you have some type of organization with chariots.

I don't know what you mean by stirrup theory, I never heard of that. But if its what I think it is and that is for control. A good horseman does not need stirrups. for one thing you balance and hold with your legs. The only thing stirrups help is when your roping.

It comes down to technique.

phoenix911

I build saddlechariots, an odd business. They never set out to be chariots, I just wanted a SAFE way to exercise a small pony called Henry. But in the horsedrawn vehicle business, safety isn't a concept. They use solid tyres, big spoked wheels, turntable steering. Haven't they looked at the cars they drive, pneumatic tyres, smaller wider wheels, ackerman steering.

The crunch factor is having an engine with a mind of its own, whose idea of safety is to accelerate to flat out and ignore anything attached to the back. So I developed an instant release system, so if things go pear shaped the pony can go off and do his thing.

So no worse than falling off. A loose pony tends to find grass and eat. But the British Horse Establishment absolutely hate the idea. They haven't spoken to me, ever, and they won't even answer recorded delivery letters. What is tragic, is that I have a version that works with wheelchairs and a wide variety of disabilities but Riding for the Disabled refuse to let me work with the disabled in the UK. They state they have never looked at any vehicle I have built and never will.

Which is why I tend to talk to engineers and similar civilised human beings.

I can see that roping, for any pull from the side, stirrups would help, but you are right about grip and balance for most things. I'm not saying stirrups don't help, just they weren't the vital invention that is claimed, rather like the horse collar, but that's another story.

Simon

What is tragic, is that I have a version that works with wheelchairs and a wide variety of disabilities but Riding for the Disabled refuse to let me work with the disabled in the UK. They state they have never looked at any vehicle I have built and never will.

Concidering that your power units have a "Fight or Flight Mentality" when a situation arises.

Try taking a different approach, And call it rehabilition. A temporary solution.

Little off topic.

Is Henry a Halflinger? His bone structure is alittle heavier, as well his muscle mass but not enough for a halflinger.

The flight or fight mentality is no problem with my vehicle. At the first sign the animal is going to do something stupid, pull the ripcord and let it go. You are safe, the pony is safe, everyone else is safe. Here is a video of the ripcord on the standard two wheeler, the wheelchair version is a three wheeler.

Simon

FASCINATING! Thanks for sharing that.

Is it possible that horse saddles were copied from arrangements made for elephants and camels? (Sumeria) which predate egyptian designs (I would think that chariot designs were first invented there as well)

Redfred, sorry just looked at my answer and it is rather abrupt and rude, sorry didn't mean it like that, just typing in a hurry. Have you got a link to the film of the chariot, because I will look at any.

Chris saddles are after riding, as a cloth is good enough, and riding is around 800BC. Chariots had been around since at least 2800BC and with my bowmakers wheel I think I can shift them back to 3000BC. And yes the earliest examples are in Sumeria, but a composite wheel, wouldn't last any better than a composite bow but would work just as well, as long as it was a one man chariot.

I don't know when camels were domesticated, or first ridden, and when the saddles appeared. I don't think they had stirrups.

Simon

Originally all trades were grouped under the title "Carpenter" the master tradesman.

Our family operated a dairy farm and still are. My dad had a sawmill to keep the boys busy in the winter time. And we had horses, Work, Harness and riding, we were all in 4H.

One year my brother and I he was 21 and I was 17 made a horse drawn sleigh.

We used Hickory, tryied to make it make it out of one piese, but had jig issues and getting it steamed to make a tight radius, it kept splitting, we had 3 failures before we decided to laminate them. See sketch below;

we cut them in 3/8 in thick pieces and steamed them and mounted them in a jig.

after which we glued them up we did this over 30 years ago, and still using the cutter.

My dad goes to Shipshewana, Indiana once a year to pick up wheels for 2 wheel carts we make for the horses. kinda a trek for you though.

There theyare Amish wheelwrights and blacksmiths that make the wheels. Its more streamline that it was 100 years ago. But functional and reasonalbly priced.....go figure.

yes a chariot is a plaform on wheels, and there isn't much to a driving harness.

You can drive chariots at high speed, but its risky taking corners though.

I'll see if my dad has any contacts and literture for you if you like. I'll post some pictures of the carts also.

phoenix911

Pheoenix,

sorry, missed answering your post among so many, and interesting how easy it is to miss a whole range of ideas. The sled idea just hadn't occurred to me, though in the early days of vehicle building I built a couple, but on tubular runners which didn't work on mud and dogmess, which in Essex is called soil.

What is interesting is that it looks like laminating was vital to nomads in wide open spaces, great plains, steppes, tundra, but urban areas are nearer forestry so you let the trees do the woodwork

Apparently in Tudor England you had to have 6 oaks to the acre, but not more than 10. The reasoning apparently was that the strongest right angle joint was that created by an oak branch at right angles and this was used in ship building. But out on the steps you use the bush you have, (I do wish the USA hadn't) and laminate.

So was laminating a nomadic skill ignored when cities were built with access to timber, via rivers.

Hey a brilliant new theory, is there any evidence to support it.

And I would love to see pictures.

Thank you

Simon

Next trip to my brothers farm, I'll take some pics of it, and post it.

I think the evidence is mostly circumstantial, since few nomadic peoples kept written records (hard to haul a library around). The Saami of northern Eurasia, the Huns and Magyars of Asia Minor, Mongols, American plains Indian tribes like the Comanche, Canadian tribes in the far north, and several others where good wooden timber is scarce apparently developed lamination techniques separately. They didn't all even use wood, some of them used horn and sinew to make bows instead.

Called caltrops, but actually effective against horses rather than chariots specifically. The Romans used chariots for racing, and almost never fought against them as by the Roman era, horses could carry people, ie they were big and tough enough. The Brits used chariots against the Romans in 55BC as the rideable horse apparently only came over the channel in 70BC, but the Romans had no real problem with them any more than the British Army would have a problem with Del's repeating crossbow. First time a very nasty shock, but even an SA80 is better, only just though.

Come to think of it, a Caltrop would be pretty effective against people as well. I know they were still in use against vehicles a few years ago.

Simon

The earliest spoke-wheeled chariots I can find a reference for are from burial sites on the steppes east of the Ural mountains in Kazakhistan, and date to ca 2,000 BCE. Since these peoples also used the composite recurve bow extensively, it would seem the overlap of skills would almost have to have cross-pollinated. However, since ideas don't preserve well in cultures without writing, I doubt there's much chance of actually finding proof.

I just wanted to run the idea through on the basis of "is it possible?" If I can make a chariot using nomadic herder techniques, I can at least upset the idea that chariots developed in cities. After all there weren't a lot of wild horses in cities and not a lot of use for them, as oxen are easier to harness and use.

The virtue of the horse is speed and nothing else. So a lightweight skeleton chariot would make sense attached to a horse, but not attached to an ox. And for a heavy cart, an ox makes sense not a light horse.

Simon.

I gathered as much. Now all you need do is hook up with Del and cozzen him into helping you build one! I suspect tins of tuna will speed that process...

Wild horses are surely not common in cities. Keep in mind, though, that back in those days, a "city" was probably <10K people in most instances. And out on the steppes, tribal units of at most a few hundred nomads would have been the norm, apart from seasonal gatherings for trading purposes. Same with the Native Americans of the great plains, who had similar cultures. Interestingly, they did not come up with the idea of wheels or chariots. Perhaps because until the Spanish brought (and lost some) horses, their beasts of burden were people and dogs. They used the travois for hauling loads. They certainly did master the bow and arrow, though! Into the late 1800's, the Comanche warriors would use them in preference to any firearms.

FWIW, check out the construction methods/materials for dog sleds made by (Eskimo isn't PC anymore) Native Canadians. I think you'll find a great similarity, but with runners instead of wheels.

Hadn't thought of dog sleds, many thanks. As I remember my history, the wheel didn't make it across the Atlantic till Europeans brought it. Just checked, the wheel was known but only used in toys.

What is odd, since you mention the travois, is that the concept of a pole up each side of a person or dog was known from the travois, yet until Han china 60BC I think, I can find no evidence of a single pony or horse with a shaft each side. All representations show two horses and a single pole.

You would think having trained the first pony, you would put it in something, not say, right if a train another pony I will need one less straight pole, but a much more complex harness. And off you go to catch another pony.

Simon

In similar fashion, Hero invented the steam engine, but its uses were toy-like, or used in religious ceremonies, not as a work source. That came hundreds (if not thousands) of years later with Watt's re-invention, in a more practical form to be sure, but similar in principle. Odd how things progress or not based on the culture found about them!

_{The virtue of the horse is speed and nothing else.}

Wow. There's an argument waiting to happen.

Now if I had said, other than tasting good, their only virtue is speed, would I have been any safer?

Simon

The virtue of the horse is speed and nothing else.

I won't go quite that far.

The Belgian work horse we have raise them, and my dad who's 85 years old, still uses them for logging, We bred them down with mustangs or arabians to give them a smaller statue, (so my dad can harness them easier) and use them for raking hay, or misc. farm work, pulling wagons and such, since them he went to haflingers, body type seems to be more like a minature belgian.

Also these horses in the middle ages were used for war, being big and strong enough to carry a knight and armour into battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_(horse)

Or Clydesdales, I was under the understanding that these where breed up from ponies from monks, (must have alot of time on there hands ). I have to verify that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydesdale_(breed)

Arabians on the other hand were use for transportations and endurence, while a quarter horse used as a roping and cattle handling horses in the west. (there are other breeds used but the quarter horse had quick speed in the short run, thats where your correct)

I have to say, when we pulled, the half breeds or haflingers in competition, and its judged by weight, those 800 - 1200 (1600 - 2400 lb teams) pound would stand to the 2000 - 2400 (4000 - 4800lb ) pound draft horses

And these horse where not bred for speed. And riding them which had to be bareback is quite an experience, and excerise in stretching.

phoenix911

Sorry, I was referring to historically on the speed question. And it is still true today that while horse might average 3mph on heavy work, an oxen will do 1 to 1.5. For sheer slogging power an ox wins, but if you have to plough before it freezes or get the hay in before it rains, the horse pays off.

The War horse idea is lovely and it is promoted madly but if you take the gun dog, lets be accurate, most days it slobs around even when the owner is a hunter, it may only go out 30 days a year. So for 335 days it isn't a gun dog. Look at the war horse. The 100 Years War had about 30 days of battles in 100 years. The King might have a war horse, a few particularly successful knights but you notice in all the old fairy tales they were used exactly as men use sports cars, for picking up girls, and telling the dragon that yes you would get them back before midnight, and you would drive sensibly and wouldn't drink.........

So most "War" horses spent most of their lives hauling carts. The army nicked what was available, carts horses. Because it was the upper classes poncing around on top of them, they gave them fancy names.

You can work on the assumption that most of the breed history is lies. It is only a sales catalogue, and Henry Ford said History was bunk. The General Stud Book, created in England to record the history of the Thoroughbred in around 1780, doesn't even mention the word Thoroughbred in the first edition. It was only written to stop the upper classes running ringers in weight for age handicaps. And the world famous Eclipse was owned by the husband of the most popular Brothel keeper serving the members (sorry about that) of the House of Lords.

You are dead right on the smaller animals holding their own. My Henry is 450 to 470lbs and you watch him move with 290lbs of me and saddlechariot, (220 of it me). He will do a flat gallop uphill cross country for fun.

As a matter of interest, when working your horses, did your father use a whip>

Simon

But I do remember there were horses that was just spoiled, (abused) were it would take a long time to shake them, but we could not due it completely. they could have been more hot blooded naturally only the more experience riders handled them, just due to the quick break aways we could limit or keep them controllable.

.

To break the horse we had what we called a stone boat, kinda like a oversized sled, we would load it with stones, made it difficult for them to run, until one time, a large rock fell off, that horse made more gates in the fences, running in and out the all the pastures, it took 3 days of fence mending to get things back to where they where. We can look back at it now and laugh, but at the time all we could do was watch until the horse got tired and bored and stopped.

there were a few other ways we used, depends on what we were going to use the horse for

phoenix911

You can work on the assumption that most of the breed history is lies.

Look at what happened to dog breeds, they bred in defects

phoenix911

Don't get me started on what breeders have done. And it isn't just the dogs, they have done it to horses just as badly, lots more money you see. Have a look at this

that was my point. There was another thread in CR4 about this

We had raised Registered Arabians, while growing up, Though we had felt that the better horse was the so called grade, more even tempered, smarter, as well as the physical porportions, but when you start taking about that. you end up getting pulled in to selective breeding

As far as the wild mustangs, one would think that would be a natural selection, but it isn't, one has to be careful because of inbreeding inside the herds.

phoenix911

So far as the medieaval knight's horse was concerned, he did not even always use it as a fighting animal but to transport a very heavy armoured knight to the scene of the battle. In fact, in many cases, the knights dismounted to fight on foot. Especially the English Knights. The French on their ? Percherons never liked to dismount as they would be at a level of their peons. So there also class differences between the French and the English, which perhaps explains why the Frenchies has their bloody Revolution whilst the Brits did not.

Remember also that later in the Middle Ages, there were mounted soldiers, not knights, that needed the horse to carry them. And they used armour as well. Though not so heavy.

I do not believe at all that, apart from the supposed 30 days of battles, the horses that the knights used reverted to being cart horses in the 100 Years War. Load of, appropriately, old cobblers ! Try and keep your personal opinions on Society out of a historical argument.

I like your kit but I am not sure that history supports your attempt to rationalise its use in mediaeval times.

The structure of a bow, particularly a recurved one, doesn't seem too different to a leaf-spring. Anyone seen any evidence of chariots thus sprung?

It is absolutely clear to me that skateboards cannot work. I have tried one and they are unstable, silly and dangerous. But other people seem to do OK.

I have a 3 year old Great Dane. We're pretty sure he was the runt of the litter. He is only 130# and is about the size of a female his same age. A male will typically be between 150 and 160#.

I have a scooter (non-motorized, kick type) which has mountain bike (26") wheels and he has a pulling harness. The tug line between him and the scooter has a bungee section in it which has about 6" of stretch to it.

I run Harley (the dog) between 50 and 60 miles a week. The farthest I've run him in one day was 24 miles. We were both worn out at the end of that run. It's been great for him. It has kept him very lean and has built a lot of muscle on his chest and hips - all good things for a breed where weight is detrimental.

He is fast too. He can chace a bicycle for nearly 2 miles at speeds in the high teens. The fastest he's pulled me was 26 mph for about 1/2 mile - that was a thrill ride!

People under estimate the power of most animals. A dog can pull about 3 times their weight. I would guess it is about the same for a pony.

Here in the Pacific North West there are a lot of people who excercise their dogs with either a scooter or a sulky.

All the best,

Travis
KB0PWP

The power is magic. And as long as you are prepared to get off if the animals is tired or sore, you can go for miles and the speeds are mindboggling + your feel so fast.

Pure magic. Simon

are you registered? If not give it a go. There are many "guests" which is ok, but it is nice to get to know one another a bit better.

With all due respect to DellDeCat - and that is deep indeed - I am compelled to fill in the small gaps in your knowledge. So sit up and listen.

Soviet socialist republic did seek legitimacy, among other things, via archeology in the vast steppes (flat grasslands) north of the Caucasus mountains. Well, guess what? Instead they found stuff belonging to the hungarian (hun or magyar in our vernacular) going back 6 - 8000 years. It was a stable society organised on military system, based on horsemanship, including saddle and stirrup. And magnificently built recurve compound bows, that had to cost a tidy sum to build.

My great, great.......great grandfathers under the name Hittites did a favor to the Egyptian Empire by invading it. (Until then the egyptians were footsolders). What did those louts do? After some 200 years, learning about horses and compound bows, threw their rulers out. It is just like the british island subjects of an enlightened Roman Empire not having the moxie to learn from their betters?!?!? How barbarian, preferring freedom to enlightement!?!

Skipping a note or two, or three, I still can read some egyptian grave inscription in hungarian - I mean understandable today. Here I have to insert a quick language lesson. Skip it, if bored. Modern languages are variable, using prefixes. Old languages (at least surviving old languages) are stable, using suffixes. The difference is fundamental, as illustrated:

book konyv

my book konyvem

for my book konyvemnek

( attribute) for my book konyvemenek

and so on, until you run out of good style. As you never run out of clear understanding. The remaining suffix based ancient languages are stable, because in an building block fashion, they are adaptable, whatever the momentary requirements.

So, DellDeCat, I gladly welcome you as an honorary hungarian, as you amply proved by your accomplishments. If that means tribal links to yours, so be proudly it!

Leveles, is this the Sredny Stog culture you are referring to? There is some dispute about the dates, but when isn't there between archaeologists. Hungarian horsemanship has certainly been renowned for as long as horsemanship has been around, and all the evidence suggest an origin of horsemanship in that area.

The point is to tie nomadic horsemens skills to the chariot. If you can build a compound bow and a yurt, can you build a chariot. It sounds like the engineering concesus is yes, a light one man, fun, hooligan vehicle is possible.

It's what I love about this site, we get into discussions of Hungarian as a way of deciphering Egyptian. But knowledge is the plaything of those who like knowledge.

Simon

I think I would look to the barrel makers - they have the tech to make wheels, and they have something to carry in their chariots.

they would be called coopers.

I'll bet my best bow that's not what the Sumerians called them.

I agree about something to carry in a barrel, as long as it wasn't water or anything pointless like that, but the point is to shift the technology level back to the 3,000BC era. The more I look at it, the more a laminated lightweight structure makes sense. To take wagon wheels and cut them down to be light, would be as much work as to start ground up using bowmaking, sled making, yurt making technology, and there is nothing in the process as I envisage it, that we don't do today.

Simon

I'm surprised no one has made the obvious connection - pottery wheels.

I thought was getting complicated, now you're making it worse. But damn good point. Any idea when pottery wheels first appeared?

Simon

According to the "Ceramics Today" website, the estimate is Sumeria, 6,000-5,000 BCE, but they also surmise the wheeled (solid, made of planks) cart or chariot came first, and the potters' wheel was developed from that.

This is where it gets tricky, and I start to offend people with history and archaeology degrees. I have added the picture from the Ceramics Today site, and to engineers as opposed to historians, the question of steering raises its ugly head. But it is possible that this was shown like this because Sumerians assumed if there were two wheels, you showed them both. Look how long it took to get perspective, and look at the way the guys who created that "breed" the Thoroughbred, showed them galloping.

So we still have the possibility of an ancient Sumerian nomad Del the Cat, deciding he could go faster with a laminated wheel and haring around annoying the neighbours, and the picture above is what you get when a few City types, two accountants and a few management specialists have all had their say and built it in a subsidised Big Three factory.

The wheel idea was obviously in the air, and everyone would have been looking at it. But that doesn't mean they all built it that way. And look at pictures of our British Royalty and the vehicles they cruise around in. It doesn't give an accurate picture of 21st century vehicle technology or society.

Simon

and the horse in the picture would probably have been an onager according to most historians if that picture is, as I think, from around 2,500BC. The onager has a donkey's tail with a tuft on the end. That looks like a horse tail. So we are in Henry Ford territory, with history as bunk. The vehicle can't work as drawn and the animal is the wrong animal, so I reckon I have just as much right to look at interesting hypothesises as historians. I at least know about driving chariots cross country.

Sorry, I should have posted the link. I presume artistic license is not a new invention, and I concur that royalty's chariots would never be the same as the hoi polloi would have. Still, I think (opinion, no historical basis that hasn't already been stated) that the lightweight chariot with spoked wheels is more likely the invention of a nomadic people who would have had greater need of weight savings than would the farmers of the city cultures and the armies that protected them. They also would have been much more constrained by available materials than other cultures given their locations in relatively treeless steppes/prairies. I think we'd both be on the same page had they written books...

That's really the point I'm looking at. History is written by the winners. The kayak was an incredibly advanced design concept in ultralight construction, ditto the dog sled, compound bow, etc. It just struck me that the nomads could have developed the chariot for hunting and discovered how much fun it is.

These saharan chariots are more recent, 1000BC earliest but show the concept of a non urban chariot use. It is agreed that these were one man non load bearing high speed vehicles. Interestingly, because of their African origin, they are mostly ignored in Western equestrian history which carefully destroys any record of African horsemanship. For those who wish to check my evidence for that very contentious statement, have a look at this.

What is relevant is that nobody is saying in engineering terms the laminated wheel is a non starter, the next trick is to get someone to build one. Del, have you got anything l=planned for the next week?

Simon

funny thing about history. . . . . . its usually always written by the conquerers and not the conquered.

phoenix911

great I just read post 70......ditto